Perceived Parental Warmth and Rejection in Childhood as Predictors of Humor Styles and Subjective Happiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined maternal and paternal w armth (acceptance) and rejection (hostility and aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection), as remembered by young adults, in relation to humor styles and subjective happiness.A total of 283 Lebanese college students completed the Arabic versions of the Adult Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire for Mother and Father, the Humor Styles Questionnaire, and the Subjective Happiness Scale.As predicted, parental warmth correlated positively and parental overall rejection and specific rejection scores correlated negatively w ith subjective happiness ratings.Parental warmth tended to correlate positively with use of adaptive humor styles, and negatively with use of maladaptive humor styles, while parental rejection tended to correlate positively with use of maladaptive humor styles and negatively with use of adaptive humor styles.I n addition, self-enhancing humor mediated the relationships between parental warmth and rejection and subjective happiness.Overall, the findings are consistent w ith the view that parental w armth and rejection might contribute to the development of particular styles of humor, which in turn may contribute to later happiness and well-being.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".