Interweaving Threads: Untangling the Moderating Relationship of Parent-Child Conflict and Closeness in the Association Between Interparental Conflict and Emotion Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity to regulate emotions is central to children's physical, emotional, and mental well-being as they develop. The influence of adverse childhood experiences on diminished emotion regulation (ER) has been linked to internalizing and externalizing problem behaviours in both children and adolescents. This cross-sectional study, including 479 Canadian emerging adults aged 17-19 years, examined how exposure to different levels of interparental conflict (IPC) during childhood was associated with ER (i.e., expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal) during emerging adulthood, and how parent-child closeness and parent-child conflict moderated this link. Findings revealed that at higher levels of parent-child closeness, IPC was associated with increased expressive suppression, while there were no significant differences in expressive suppression at lower levels of parent-child closeness. Similarly, IPC was more strongly associated with reduced cognitive reappraisal in the context of high parent-child conflict compared to low conflict. Findings from this work will inform interventional therapeutic and counselling practices to support the well-being of children and families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".