Interpersonal mattering and students’ friendship quality as predictors of subjective wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Subjective wellbeing (SWB) refers to one’s subjective assessment of happiness. Studies reported that happiness or SWB is predicted by friendship quality. However, others reported that SWB is strongly predicted by the sense that we matter to others (interpersonal mattering). This non-experimental correlational study aimed to test the hypothesis whether interpersonal mattering is a better predictor of SWB than friendship quality. One-hundred-and-nineteen emerging adults were recruited through convenience-purposive sampling with inclusion criteria includes Malaysian within 18 to 25 years of age. The sample size was gotten through G*Power calculator with .15 effect size, .95 Power, and .05 alpha level. The participants were asked to fill up the mcgill friendship questionnaire-friend’s functions (MFQFF), mattering to others questionnaire (MTOQ), and subjective happiness scale (SHS). We tested the hypotheses that while both friendship quality and interpersonal mattering predict SWB, the latter was the strongest predictor. Results of the multiple regression analyses showed that individuals who feels they matter to others might have higher SWB.</p>
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".