The mediator role of negative and positive automatic thoughts between attachment quality towards significant others and adolescents’ internalizing problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies found that the insecure attachment of adolescents towards their mother, father, and peers leads to more internalizing problems and maladaptive cognitive processes (for example, low self-esteem). However, the dynamic between the attachment of adolescents, negative and positive automatic thoughts, and internalizing problems of adolescents is not well understood. The present study proposed and tested a theoretical model in which positive and negative automatic thoughts mediate the relationship between the attachment of adolescents towards their parents and peers and the internalizing problems of adolescents. A clinical sample of adolescents (N=105; mean age = 16.60), diagnosed with internalizing disorders, have filled out the evaluations for this study. All analyses were conducted in RStudio, and the mediation models were tested using Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling. Our main results are that positive and negative automatic thoughts mediate the relationship between adolescents’ parents- and peer-related attachment and internalizing problems. The biological sex and age of adolescents did not moderate any of the paths in the model. Parents and peer attachment, along with positive and negative automatic thoughts, explained 57 % of the variance in the internalizing problems of adolescents. The main findings of the paper are discussed, and the main caveats are underlined.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".