Adolescent Mental Health Following Exposure to Positive and Harsh Parenting in Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives:The purpose of the present study was to assess longitudinal associations between positive and harsh parenting in childhood and adolescent mental and behavioral difficulties.Methods:Data were drawn from Canada’s population-based National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (data collected from 1994 to 2009, analyzed 2018). The sample included 9,882 adolescents aged 12/13 years old. Parents self-reported positive and harsh parenting when children were 6/7, 8/9, and 10/11 years old. Symptoms of depression/anxiety, hyperactivity, physical aggression, social aggression, and suicidal ideation were self-reported by adolescents at age 12/13. Linear regression was used to examine the associations between parenting behaviors at each age and adolescent psychiatric symptoms, adjusted for children’s baseline symptoms.Results:Harsh parenting at 10/11 was associated with elevated symptoms of early-adolescent physical aggression, social aggression, and suicidal ideation for boys only, and for all children at earlier ages. Beginning at age 8/9, harsh discipline was associated with elevated symptoms of depression/anxiety for boys only. Overall, positive parenting at age 6/7 was protective against depression/anxiety, physical aggression, and social aggression. Significant sex differences emerged beginning at age 8/9, with positive parenting associated with higher symptoms of depression/anxiety for boys only. Positive parenting at age 10/11 was associated with increased depression/anxiety, physical aggression, social aggression, and suicidal ideation among boys, but decreased symptoms of physical aggression, social aggression, and suicidal ideation among girls.Conclusions:Results suggest that the impact of positive and harsh parenting may depend on age and sex, with harsh parenting being more detrimental to boys as they approach adolescence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".