Perceived Adverse Parenting in Childhood and Psychological Distress Among Psychotherapy Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The way people derive inferences from actual adverse experiences plays an important role in the development of psychopathology. This study aims to examine the mediating role of pathogenic beliefs (i.e., emotion-laden, powerful, painful convictions about self and others) on the relation between perceived adverse parenting behaviors in childhood and subsequent adult psychopathology. Participants (mostly Caucasian and heterosexual) were 204 consecutively admitted patients with a range of psychological difficulties, including depression, anxiety, and interpersonal problems, at a low-fee outpatient clinic. Participants completed standard self-report assessments of perceived parental style, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and a clinically derived measure of pathogenic beliefs. We examined the indirect effects of adverse parenting on anxiety and depressive symptom severity through pathogenic beliefs. Pathogenic beliefs reflecting the unreliability of others significantly mediated the relationship between adverse parenting and anxiety symptoms. The other mediation model is consistent with the theory that perceived adverse parenting contributes to the severity of depressive symptoms through beliefs about not being deserving and other people being unreliable. Within the limitations of the cross-sectional, retrospective, and self-report nature of the data, our results seem to suggest that attending to intermediary subjective beliefs might be important in understanding psychopathology development in the context of childhood adversity. Aiming to modify the beliefs in therapy might modify the symptoms. However, this would remain to be demonstrated through formal intervention research.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".