The role of perceived parental overprotection in women's restrained eating behavior: A moderated mediation model of alexithymia, perfectionism, and asceticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restrained eating behavior (REB) refers to the tendency to rigidly restrict one's eating behavior in everyday life to influence body shape or weight. Parental overprotection, alexithymia, perfectionism, and asceticism are associated with REB among women. However, no studies have examined these variables simultaneously, integrating them into a theoretical model. In the current study, the combined influences of these variables on women's REB were tested. A total of 412 women (Mage = 23.53 ± 4.24; range = 16-54) completed well-known self-report measures: Parental Bonding Instrument, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, Protestant Work Ethic Scale, and Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire. Parallel mediation and moderated mediation hypotheses were tested using PROCESS Model 4 and PROCESS Model 15, respectively. The paths from both maternal and paternal overprotection to REB were mediated through alexithymia and socially prescribed perfectionism. There was a significant interaction effect of asceticism with socially prescribed perfectionism on REB in the model concerning paternal overprotection (b = 0.0185, SE = 0.0091, 95% CI = 0.0007-0.0363). Moreover, asceticism significantly moderated the effect of paternal overprotection on REB through socially prescribed perfectionism (b = 0.0032, SE = 0.0019, 95% CI = 0.0001-0.0076). For the model concerning maternal overprotection, the moderated mediation model was not supported. The findings support a theoretical model of risk factors for REB and highlight the possible mechanisms through which the quality of early parental relationships contributes to REB.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".