Provided and received positive and negative social control, relationship satisfaction, and sedentary behavior in parent-child dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The close relationship processes and health model and the dyadic health influence model posit that relationship beliefs (eg, relationship satisfaction) and influence strategies (eg, provision and receipt of positive and negative social control) mediate health behavior change. However, evidence for such mediation in parent-child dyads is limited. PURPOSE: Two complementary mediation hypotheses were tested: (1) social control forms indirect relationships with sedentary behavior (SB), via relationship satisfaction acting as a mediator; and (2) relationship satisfaction forms indirect relationships with SB, with social control operating as a mediator. METHODS: Data from 247 parent-child dyads (9- to 15-year-old children) were analyzed using manifest mediation models. SB was measured with GT3X-BT accelerometers at Time 1 (T1; baseline) and Time 3 (T3; 8-month follow-up). Relationship satisfaction and social control were assessed at T1 and Time 2 (T2; 2-month follow-up). Path analysis models, controlling for baseline SB, were fit. RESULTS: Received positive control (children, T1) was associated with higher relationship satisfaction in both children and parents (T2), which in turn were related to lower and higher parental SB at T3, respectively. Provided positive control (parents; T1) was related to higher SB (T3) in children. Relationship satisfaction among children (T1) predicted higher levels of received positive and negative control (children, T2). CONCLUSIONS: Provided and received positive social control may form direct and indirect associations with SB in parent-child dyads. Future research may need to consider further subtypes of positive control, which may explain the divergent effects of this form of control on SB.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".