{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03513638465094776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019417475728155338, 'mean_word_length': 4.817204301075269, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Parental influences do matter!

Parental rearing behaviour is important because of its determinant relevance for attachment and, by implication, its later influence on personality development and mental health (1,2). For example, Franz et al. (3) demonstrated that over a period of 36 years, the children of warm, affectionate fathers, and boys with warm mothers and less stressful childhood years were more likely to be well adjusted adults who, at the age of 41 years, were mentally healthy, coping adequately, and psychosocially mature. In addition, Livianos-Aldana and Rojo-Moreno (4) have, in this issue of Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, briefly summarized several of the psychiatric conditions that have been linked with atypical parental upbringing. Yet some researchers have still attempted to downplay the role of parenting by noting that the cross-sectional associations between parental rearing factors on the one hand and psychological (states and) traits on the other are extremely small, ranging from 0.09 to 0.30 in absolute magnitude, and thus accounting for only about 1-9% of the variance in adult trait scores (5 , p.109). On the basis of findings such as these, McCrae and Costa ( 5 ) concluded, among other things, that parents fail to have any influence on their children, and that such low values of r2 would sound the death knell for the part played by parents. However, this belittling of parental influences is unjustified as it is based on at least two misconceptions. First, Rosenthal and Rubin (6) have shown that a Pearson r of, for example, 0.32 associated with an r2 of only 10% was the correlational equivalent of increasing a success rate from 34% to 66% by means of an experimental treatment procedure. For instance, these values could mean that a death rate under the control condition is 66%, but that it is only 34% under the experimental condition. Rosenthal and Rubin noted that it is absurd to label even as ‘modest’ (McCrae and Costa used the term ‘extremely small’) an effect size equivalent to increasing the success rate of a treatment from 34% to 66%. Thus, the reliance on what r2 reflects can be highly misleading.