Early Family Experiences, Drug Use, and Psychosocial Adjustment across the Life Span: Is Parental Strictness Always a Protective Factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study analyzes whether parental strictness, which is shared by authoritative parenting (strictness and warmth) and authoritarian parenting (strictness without warmth) styles, always acts as a main protective factor against drug use and psychosocial maladjustment in children. This conclusion has already been stated in numerous classic studies, though emergent research suggests that there are benefits to parental warmth regardless of whether strictness is present or not. Method: Sample were 2,095 Spanish participants (1,227 females, 58.6%), 581 adolescent children (aged 12-18 years, 27.7%) and 1,514 adult children (72.3%). The measures were the main parenting style dimensions (warmth and strictness), drug use, and a set of indicators of psychosocial adjustment. A 4 × 2 × 4 MANOVA was applied for all outcomes with parenting style, sex, and age as independent variables. Results: Indulgent parenting (warmth without strictness) was related to less drug use than parenting without warmth (authoritarian and neglectful). Additionally, indulgent and authoritative parenting styles were related to better scores on psychosocial adjustment than authoritarian and neglectful styles, although the indulgent parenting was the only style related to the optimal scores being equal or even more effective than the authoritative style. Conclusion: Contrary to classical studies, present findings suggest that it is the parental warmth instead of the parental strictness that seems to be effective in protecting against drug use and psychosocial maladjustment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".