Parent–child communication and third generation’s difficulties: Roles of parental depression and self-efficacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines whether parents' past communication with their own parents is associated with children's psychological difficulties and whether this association is mediated by parents' depression and self-efficacy. Evidence of the intergenerational transmission of parent-child relationships is well-documented in the literature, but few studies have explored the intergenerational paths between grandparents' and parents' (first and second generations, G1-G2, respectively) communication, parents' depression and sense of efficacy, and children's (third generation, G3) psychological difficulties. Drawing on participants from Fast Track, a multisite longitudinal study, the present analyses included data from 360 original children, now parents (54% fathers, mean age = 34), who completed measures about their own depression and self-efficacy as well as their children's psychological and behavioral difficulties; during childhood (mean age = 10) these same parents had reported on communication with their G1 parents. Running mediation path analyses, we discovered that G1G2 communication was significantly related to G2's depression and emotional and parental self-efficacy. No direct associations between G1G2 communication and G3's psychological difficulties were found, nor did G2's emotional and parental self-efficacy mediate this path across generations. Nevertheless, G2's emotional and parental self-efficacy were significantly associated with G3's psychological difficulties, showing evidence of two generations and not three generations effects. By focusing on three generations, the present study extends knowledge about the critical role of G1 and G2 relationship quality and parenting on the next generation's psychological development and well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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".