Relation between Perceived Parental Acceptance and Intimate Partner Acceptance in Turkey: Does History Repeat Itself?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing from parental acceptance‐rejection theory (PARTheory), the present study investigated the link between perceived parental acceptance‐rejection in childhood and perceived partner acceptance‐rejection in adulthood. Two hundred forty‐five dating or married individuals were divided into two groups, those who felt satisfied and those who felt dissatisfied in their current intimate relationship. Compared to satisfied respondents, dissatisfied respondents reported significantly higher levels of rejection both in their current intimate relationship and in their childhood relationships with their parents. Respondents who had been accepted by their parents in childhood were also most likely to feel accepted by their intimate partners. The opposite was true, although to a lesser extent, for those respondents who felt rejected in childhood. About a quarter of the respondents who felt rejected in childhood were satisfied in their current intimate relationships. Finally, correlations between childhood and adulthood measures of acceptance revealed that both maternal and paternal acceptance‐rejection were significantly related to intimate partner acceptance‐rejection. There were no significant gender differences between male versus female respondents' perceptions of either partner or parental acceptance‐rejection.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".