Parenting Styles, Aggression and Alexithymia among Young Pakistani Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the relationship of parenting styles (permissive, authoritative, authoritarian) with aggression and alexithymia in emerging adult university students. Total 200 participants between ages 18 to 29 years (M=21.72; SD=1.53), 100 males between 19 to 29 years (M=21.87; SD=1.47) and 100 females between 18 to 26 years (M=21.58; SD=1.58) participated in this research. Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) were used for assessment. Correlational research design was used. Group testing was done. The results showed that permissive and authoritarian parenting styles were positively correlated with aggression and alexithymia in the sample. On the other hand, authoritative parenting style was negatively correlated with aggression and alexithymia. Authoritarian mother and authoritative mother parental style significantly predicted aggression, permissivemother and authoritarian mother parental stylessignificantly predicted alexithymia. These results highlight the significance of impact of parenting on emotional and behavioral problems in adulthood. These findings have clear implications for developing cognitive therapy based programs with a special focus on positive parenting, reducing aggression and alexithymia, particularly for the psychoeducation of offspring, parents and guardians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".