Emotion Regulation and Parental Bonding in Families of Adolescents With Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental bonding and emotional regulation, while important to explain difficulties that may arise in child development, have mainly been studied at an individual level. The present study aims to examine alexithymia and parental bonding in families of adolescents with psychiatric disorders through different generations. The sample included a total of 102 adolescent patients with psychiatric disorders and their parents. In order to take a family level approach, a Latent Class Analysis was used to identify the latent relationships among alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale), perceived parental bonding (Parental Bonding Instrument) and the presence of adolescent internalizing or externalizing psychiatric symptoms (Youth Self-Report). Families of internalizing and externalizing adolescents present different and specific patterns of emotional regulation and parenting. High levels of adolescent alexithymia, along with a neglectful parenting style perceived by the adolescent and the father as well, characterized the families of patients with internalizing symptoms. On the other hand, in the families with externalizing adolescents, it was mainly the mother to remember an affectionless control parental style. These results suggest the existence of an intergenerational transmission of specific parental bonding, which may influence the emotional regulation and therefore the manifestation of psychiatric symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".