Children's cognitive appraisal moderates associations between psychologically controlling parenting and children's depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study examined three different types of Chinese children and adolescents' perceptions of psychologically controlling parenting (love withdrawal, guilt induction, and shaming), their cognitive appraisals of such parenting, and their depressive symptoms. Specifically, the moderating role of children's cognitive appraisal on the association between each type of psychologically controlling parenting and children's depressive symptoms was assessed. Child age and gender effects were also explored. METHODS: = 13.56 years) in Shanghai, China, reported on their parents' engagement in love withdrawal, guilt induction, and shaming practices, their appraisals of how much they thought their parents engaged in each of these parenting practices for their (the children's) own good, and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Moderated multiple regressions revealed that parental love withdrawal, guilt induction, and shaming were associated with more depressive symptoms, which were buffered by children's positive interpretations. Moreover, the moderating effects of positive parenting interpretations were stronger for adolescents than for younger children, but no gender differences in the moderation effects were found. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings revealed the critical role of child cognitive appraisals in the effects of parenting practices on child outcomes and highlighted the importance of examining the meaning and function of different dimensions of psychological control within a specific cultural context. Important developmental differences in the role of these cognitive appraisals and the effects of specific parenting practices were also identified.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".