Feeling Not Wanted/Loved and Depression: Does Gender Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression affects over 17 million American adults yearly and has been identified as the leading cause of disability in people between the ages of 15 and 44 years. There is evidence that feeling neglect or a lack of parental attachment during childhood is associated with depression. One construct that has been overlooked is love from a parent. The purpose of this study was to analyze the association between individuals who felt not wanted/loved during adolescence and lifetime depression and to examine this association by gender. We examined 5114 participants aged 24–32 years at Wave IV of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) public use dataset. We used logistic regression analysis to determine the association between an individual feeling not wanted/loved by their parent/caregiver prior to age 18, covariates, and lifetime depression. We then stratified by gender and ran logistic models for both men and women separately. Overall, 16.2% ( n = 827) reported lifetime depression diagnosis, while 16.5% of the participants reported feeling not wanted/loved “often,” while 29.8% reported it as “sometimes.” Feeling not wanted/loved “often” was associated with higher odds of depression (AOR = 3.00; 95% CI, 2.45–3.66; p < .001) versus “sometimes” (AOR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31–1.90; p < .001). When stratified by gender, feeling not loved/wanted was associated with depression among both men (AOR = 3.70; 95% CI, 2.60–5.25; p < .001) and women (AOR = 2.73; 95% CI, 2.13–3.48; p < .001). Feeling not loved or wanted by a parent/caregiver during adolescence has serious implications, for both men and women. Future studies should further examine this construct and identify family-based interventions that focus on parent/caregiver and child relationships.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".