Table 2.
Permissive parenting | Authoritative parenting | Authoritarian parenting | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Looic | LogBF | w | w1 | Looic | LogBF | w | w1 | Looic | LogBF | w | w1 | |
Model 0 | 3369 | 0 | 0 | 3354 | 0 | 0 | 3329 | 0 | 0 | |||
Model 1 | 1637 | 872 | 0.03 | > 1000 | 1634 | 866 | 0.42 | > 1000 | 1635 | 854 | 0.46 | > 1000 |
Model 2 | 1637 | 49 | 0.03 | 1 | 1634 | 866 | 0.41 | 0.98 | 1635 | 854 | 0.47 | 1.02 |
Model 3 | 1630 | 874 | 0.94 | 31.33 | 1636 | 864 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 1639 | 850 | 0.08 | 0.17 |
Model 0 is the null model, model 1 is the model with parenting predicting depression through the mediating role of rumination, model 2 includes the additive role of environmental sensitivity on children’s rumination, and model 3 the interaction term between environmental sensitivity and parenting on rumination, as depicted in Fig. 1. The best fitting model for each parenting style is marked in bold. All are estimated against the null model. w1 is model weight against the previously tested model. Models are estimated on N = 196 subjects
Looic leave-one-out cross-validation information criterion, logBF log-Bayes factor, w model weight.