Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Parental Relationship-Oriented Guilt Induction Versus Harsh Psychological Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined whether culture moderates the correlates of psychological control as a function of the type of measure used. We administered two measures of parental psychological control to university undergraduates from India ( n = 166) and the United States ( n = 177), as well as a measure of participants’ self-esteem. One measure assessed harsh psychologically controlling tactics; the other relationship-oriented guilt induction. We argued that while relationship-oriented guilt induction might be deemed inappropriate in the United States, Indian parents might more frequently use this technique to promote familial interdependence, a culturally specific value. Harsh psychological control, on the other hand, is unlikely to be used for benign purposes in either group. We had the following hypotheses: (a) across groups, harsh psychological control would be more strongly associated than relationship-oriented guilt induction with lower levels of reported self-esteem; (b) reports of relationship-oriented guilt induction and harsh psychological control would be more strongly associated in the United States than in India; (c) reports of relationship-oriented parental guilt induction would be more strongly associated with lower levels of self-esteem in the United States than in India; and (d) the negative associations between relationship-oriented guilt induction and self-esteem for students from the United States would become non-significant when controlling for harsh parental psychological control. Support was found for all hypotheses. Unexpectedly, in the Indian group, relationship-oriented guilt induction was positively associated with self-esteem. The implications for the measurement of psychological control are 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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".