Longitudinal relations between maternal and adolescent emotion dysregulation and maternal autonomy support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Maternal characteristics and mother-adolescent relationships are thought to affect the emotional development of adolescents. Adolescents can learn to regulate their emotions by observing their mothers, and this is further facilitated by maternal autonomy support. Therefore, this study longitudinally examined the associations among maternal emotion dysregulation, maternal autonomy support, and adolescent emotion dysregulation. METHOD: = 45.49, SD = 4.47), who completed self-reports of emotion dysregulation and maternal autonomy support for five consecutive years. RESULTS: Random Intercept-Cross Lagged Panel Model analyses showed that at the between-family level, maternal emotion dysregulation was correlated with adolescent emotion dysregulation, adolescent-reported maternal autonomy support, and mother-reported maternal autonomy support; and adolescent emotion dysregulation was correlated with adolescent-reported maternal autonomy support. At the within-family level, higher than usual maternal emotion dysregulation was positively related to adolescent emotion dysregulation at Time 1, yet, was negatively related to adolescent emotion dysregulation at other time points concurrently, and predicted lower adolescent emotion dysregulation in the next year. Also, higher than usual adolescent emotion dysregulation was related to lower adolescent-reported maternal autonomy support both concurrently and the next year. CONCLUSIONS: Both mothers and adolescents played an important role in adolescent emotional development. To promote adolescent emotional development, it is important to target both maternal emotion dysregulation to understand the development of adolescent emotion dysregulation, and adolescent emotion dysregulation to prevent mothers from providing less autonomy support to their adolescents.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".