Parental warmth and young adult depression: A comparison of enduring effects and revisionist models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Guided by a novel analytic framework, this study investigates the developmental mechanism through which parental warmth is related to young adult depression. Data were from a large sample of participants followed from early adolescence to young adulthood (N = 1,988; 54% female). Using structural equation modeling, we estimated and compared competing developmental models – enduring effects vs. revisionist models – to assess whether parental warmth during adolescence had enduring or transient effects on depression in young adulthood. We also examined whether contemporaneous experiences of parental warmth in young adulthood were more salient than parental warmth in adolescence. Results supported the revisionist model: early intergenerational experiences in adolescence predicted psychopathology early in young adulthood, but their unique effects gradually diminished; whereas parental warmth in young adulthood continued to be protective of young adult depression. Effects of mother and father warmth on young adult depression were similar in pattern and magnitude. Results were held when accounting for covariates such as adolescent sex, family income status, and family structure. Young adult mental health interventions may consider targeting maintenance or improvement in parental warmth to help offset the long-term impact of adversity early in life.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".