Parental autonomy support and honesty: The mediating role of identification with the honesty value and perceived costs and benefits of honesty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research emphasizes the importance of honesty (or the absence of lying) in adolescent-parent communication as it is ultimately linked to adolescent non-delinquency (Engels, Finkenauer, & van Kooten, 2006). Empirical evidence also suggests that positive parental practices may prevent adolescents' lying (Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006; Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, & Cauffman, 2004). This study tests an integrated model where perceived parental autonomy support and controlling parenting are expected to have opposite effects on adolescent's honesty in the parent-adolescent relationship via differential identification to the honesty value and perceived costs/benefits of being honest. Using structural equation modeling, results from 167 parent-adolescent dyads showed that autonomy support was associated with adolescents' identification to the honesty value and perceived low costs/high benefits of honesty. Opposite relations were observed with controlling parenting. Higher honesty value identification and low costs/high benefits of honesty in turn predicted adolescents' honesty. The importance of autonomy-supportive parenting in creating honest family settings is 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".