Why Is Maternal Control Harmful? The Relation between Maternal Control, Insecure Attachment and Antisocial Personality Disorder Features in Chinese College Students: A Sequential Mediation Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous work has indicated that a negative parenting style is associated with antisocial personality disorder features in Chinese college students, yet few studies have explored the unique role of negative mothering in children's antisocial personality disorder. METHODS: The current study mainly examined the sequential mediation effect of parental antipathy and neglect (PAN) and mother negative loving (a form of insecure attachment) in the association between mother control and adulthood antisocial personality disorder features (ASPD features) in the framework of attachment theory and cognitive-behavioral theory. A community sample of 1547 Chinese college students filled in the Parental Bonding Instrument, the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire, the Adult Attachment Questionnaire and the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+. RESULTS: A sequential mediation model analysis showed that maternal control significantly predicted PAN, mother negative loving, as well as ASPD features. CONCLUSIONS: Mother control and mother negative loving appear to advance on the development and exacerbation of ASPD features in college students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".