The role of parenting and parental criticism on the body image and alexithymia during adulthood and emerging adulthood
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature underline that the perception of parents as strongly critical can influence the tendency to self-criticize and, as a consequence, to be more vulnerable in manifesting problems in the developmental and adulthood age, such as the risk of dropouts and relapses in the eating disorders, negative results in the worsening of anxiety disorders, the possible presence of alexithymia or obsessive compulsive disorder. The purposes of the present study was to investigate the possible influence of parenting style and parental criticism on both the body image construct (body care, body protection, and comfort in touch) and the possible presence of alexithymia in a group of Italian adolescents and adults. The present study was conducted on a group of 140 subjects, aged between 19 and 36 (M = 24.71; SD = 5.11), of which 59 men (42.1%) and 81 women (57.9%). The participants were assigned to complete the following questionnaires: Parental Bonding Instrument, Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Perceived Criticism Inventory, and Body Checking Questionnaire. The results of this study support the research hypothesis that low age, a high level of paternal control and parental criticism can predict a high level of difficulty in communicating feelings. Furthermore, the importance attributed to appearance can be predicted by multiple variables, such as gender, age, mother care, father control and parental hypercriticism.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it