Should parents apologize to their adolescents to mend their parent–adolescent relationship? A multi‐method, multi‐phase investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apologies following interpersonal offenses tend to mend relationships, but the role of parental apologies in the parent-adolescent relationship is understudied. Further, parental apologies may have diametrical effects on the parent-adolescent relationship depending on their phrasing. In this three-phase study, we recruited 288 adolescents to assess the role of perceived (phase 1), coded (phase 2), and manipulated (phase 3) parental victim-centered and defensive apologies in the parent-adolescent relationship (i.e., adolescent forgiveness, relationship satisfaction, and perceptions of parental authority). Results from all three phases converged to suggest that victim-centered apologies predict greater forgiveness, more autonomous and less controlled motivations to forgive, and higher relationship satisfaction, compared to defensive apologies or no apologies. We found limited associations between parental apologies and parental authority.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".