Testing Cross-Lagged Associations between Conditional Parental Regard and Impostorism among Students from Elementary to Secondary School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this longitudinal study was to examine the direction of the relationship between the perception of parental conditional support and the feeling of imposture. 504 students (249 girls) aged 10-11 at the start of the study answered questionnaires on their perception of conditional parental support and their feeling of imposture over a period of five consecutive years. Using structural equation modeling, the results of cross-lagged analyzes with overlapping stability paths of each variable showed that the model where the perception of conditional support predicted the presence of the feeling of imposture the following year was the most parsimonious and the one that also best fit the data. There was no evidence for the reverse: impostorism never predicted changes in perception of conditional parental regard. The discussion focuses on the mechanisms likely involved in children internalization of parental expectations as standards that lead them to feel like an impostor. The negative impact of imposorism on the well-being and future of children increases the importance of making parents aware of the avoidance of practices leading their child to perceive that their love and acceptance are based on their accomplishments rather than on their personal qualities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".