Biological sensitivity to adolescent-parent discrepancies in perceived parental warmth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Parenting behaviors are formative to the psychological development of young people; however, parent and adolescent perceptions of parenting are only moderately correlated with each other. Whereas discrepant perceptions may represent a normative process of deindividuation from caregivers in some adolescents, in others a discrepancy might predict psychological maladjustment. The biological sensitivity to context model provides a framework from which individual differences in development can be estimated in adolescents whose perceptions of parenting diverge from those of their parents. Methods: At baseline we obtained diurnal cortisol samples from US adolescents (M = 13.37 years of age, SD = 1.06) as well as parents' and adolescents' ratings of parental warmth; we obtained adolescent-reported symptoms of psychopathology at baseline and again at follow-up two years later (N = 108, 57.5% female). We estimated waking cortisol, cortisol awakening response, and daytime cortisol slopes using piecewise regression models. Results: Lower adolescent than parent ratings of parental warmth predicted increased externalizing symptoms at follow-up. Higher waking cortisol and steeper cortisol awakening response and daytime slopes predicted increased internalizing symptoms at follow-up. Further, discrepant ratings of parental warmth interacted with cortisol awakening response and daytime slopes such that greater discrepancies predicted greater increases in externalizing symptoms in adolescents with steeper cortisol slopes. Conclusions: These findings indicate that steeper changes in cortisol production throughout the day index a greater sensitivity to perceived parental warmth. Lower adolescent than parent ratings of parental warmth may represent dysfunction in the parental relationship rather than a normative process of deindividuation in adolescents with steeper diurnal cortisol slopes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".