Parental bonding and adult psychopathology: results from the US National Comorbidity Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research using the parental bonding instrument (PBI) has suggested that lack of parental care and/or overprotection may be important risk factors for adult mental disorders. Much of this research, however, has relied on clinical populations with one or two disorders, or has used highly select community samples. METHOD: The association between parenting experiences and the occurrence of 13 common mental disorders in adulthood was evaluated in the US National Comorbidity Survey (N = 5877). The effect of sociodemographic variables (age, education, income) was statistically controlled and the effects of six parenting variables (maternal and paternal care, overprotection and authoritarianism) were examined simultaneously. The effects in men and women were examined separately. RESULTS: Lack of care was the parenting variable most consistently associated with adult psychopathology. Parenting experiences with one's mother were more consistently associated with adult mental disorders. In general the impact of parenting was diagnostically non-specific. However, there appeared to be some unique effects for externalizing disorders (substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder) in males; paternal overprotection and authoritarianism conferred a reduced risk of externalizing disorders in adult males. The overall impact of parenting as assessed by the PBI was modest, accounting for about 1 to 5 % of the variance in the occurrence of adult mental disorders. CONCLUSION: Parenting experiences, particularly lack of care, are potentially causally related in a non-specific manner to a wide variety of forms of adult psychopathology in both men and women. The overall magnitude of the effect is small but statistically significant in a nationally representative US sample.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".