Chronic Family Stress and Adolescent Health: The Moderating Role of Emotion Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess whether the association between chronic family stress and physiological measures is moderated by emotion regulation strategies in an adolescent sample. METHODS: Chronic family stress was assessed via a semistructured interview and emotion regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal and suppression) via questionnaire among 261 adolescents (14.57 (1.07) years). Several metabolic (waist-hip ratio, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and inflammatory markers (basal and stimulated proinflammatory cytokine production in response to bacterial challenge) as well as glucocorticoid sensitivity were assessed. RESULTS: There were no main effects of chronic family stress, cognitive reappraisal, or suppression on physiological measures (all p's > .10). Emotion regulation moderated the association between chronic family stress and physiological measures. As chronic family stress increased, adolescents higher in cognitive reappraisal had smaller waist-hip ratios (B = -.003, SE = .001, p = .015) and lower systolic blood pressure (B = -.303, SE = .143, p = .035), although no moderation was found with respect to inflammatory markers and glucocorticoid sensitivity (all p's > .30). In addition, as chronic family stress increased, adolescents higher in suppression showed evidence of higher stimulated proinflammatory cytokine production (B = .046, SE = .020, p = .021) and lower glucocorticoid sensitivity (B = .051, SE = .021, p = .015), although basal inflammation and metabolic measures were not moderated by suppression (all p's > .50). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the types of emotion regulation strategies used by adolescents may affect the extent to which chronic family stress affects important metabolic and immune processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".