Mindful parents, mindful children? Exploring the mediating role of mindful parenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mindfulness in parents has been associated with a number of positive family characteristics, including positive parenting behaviors, fewer externalizing or internalizing difficulties in children, and positive parent-child relationships. However, little is known about whether parents’ mindfulness, through more mindful parenting, may be linked to children’s mindfulness. The present cross-sectional study sought to examine these indirect associations in mothers and fathers and their preadolescent children. One hundred and twelve triads consisting of mothers, fathers, and their 9- to 12-year-old children participated. Mothers and fathers rated their mindfulness and mindful parenting, while children rated their mindfulness. Path modeling resulted in associations between mindfulness and mindful parenting for both mothers and fathers. Mothers’ mindful parenting was positively associated with children’s mindfulness. Additionally, mothers’ mindfulness was indirectly associated with children’s mindfulness through mothers’ mindful parenting. This mediated effect was not significant for fathers. The results provide preliminary evidence that mindful parents may socialize mindfulness in their children via their parenting behaviors, at least for mothers. Implications are discussed with reference to the socialization of mindfulness in the family.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".