Paternal Negative Parenting and Ill-Being in Adolescence: Examining the Moderating Role of Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study explores the associations between paternal negative parenting—specifically rejection, control/overprotection, and anxious rearing—and adolescent ill-being. Additionally, it examines whether resilience moderates these relationships, potentially buffering the negative effects of paternal negative parenting on adolescent well-being. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 331 adolescents (ages 12-16) from junior and senior high schools in Attica, Greece. Participants completed the Berne Questionnaire of Subjective Well-Being/Youth Form (BSW/Y), the Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran (EMBU-C) questionnaire, and the Resilience Scale. Correlation analyses, multiple regression models, and moderation analyses were employed to examine the associations between paternal negative parenting, resilience, and adolescent ill-being. Results: Results showed that paternal rejection, though the least reported, was the strongest predictor of adolescent ill-being. Resilience was negatively associated with paternal rejection and significantly predicted well-being outcomes. A moderation analysis revealed that resilience buffered the negative association between paternal control/overprotection and adolescent ill-being, with lower resilience amplifying the adverse effects. Younger adolescents perceived their fathers as more controlling and overprotective, while girls reported higher ill-being than boys. Implications: These findings highlight the pivotal role of resilience in mitigating the adverse effects of paternal negative parenting. Intervention efforts should prioritize the reduction of paternal rejection and control/overprotection, while simultaneously fostering resilience in adolescents. Integrating resilience-building components and encouraging positive paternal involvement may enhance psychosocial outcomes and promote adaptive developmental trajectories.
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 | 0.001 | 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".