Adolescence in lockdown: The protective role of mentalizing and epistemic trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mentalizing is the ability to interpret one's own and others' behavior as driven by intentional mental states. Epistemic trust (openness to interpersonally transmitted information) has been associated with mentalizing. Balanced mentalizing abilities allow people to cope with external and internal stressors. Studies show that social isolation imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic was highly stressful for most people, especially for adolescents. Here we examine whether mentalizing and epistemic trust were protective factors in relation to emotional distress during the lockdown. METHOD: A total of 131 nonclinical adolescents, aged between 12 and 18 years, were evaluated during the lockdown using the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire for Youth, Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, Perceived Stress Scale, and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. RESULTS: Results from network analysis showed that epistemic trust and mentalizing were negatively associated with perceived stress and emotion dysregulation. Epistemic trust in fathers was associated with level of perceived stress, and epistemic trust in mothers with emotion dysregulation. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that epistemic trust and the capacity to mentalize were low in adolescents during lockdown, and this was associated with high levels of stress. However, robust levels of epistemic trust and mentalizing may have acted as protective factors that buffered individuals from the risk of emotional dysregulation during the lockdown.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".