New Paths for Parental Warmth and Subjective Well-Being: The Mediator Roles of Negative Automatic Thoughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of studies have pointed out that parental acceptance-rejection, which is the degree of warmth in parenting, is an important factor that influences not only children's but also adults' subjective well-being. However, few studies have analyzed subjective well-being in adulthood based on the emergence of cognitive automatic thinking processes that are triggered by the level of parental warmth. Specifically, the mediator role of negative automatic thoughts in the relationship between parental warmth and subjective well-being is still under debate. This present study extended the parental acceptance and rejection theory by integrating automatic negative thoughts into the core concept of cognitive behavioral theory. The present study attempts to examine the mediator role of negative automatic thoughts in the relationship between retrospective reports of emerging adults' parental warmth and their subjective well-being. The participants consist of 680 of 49.4% women and 50.6% men Turkish-speaking emerging adults. The Adult Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire Short-Form was used to measure parental warmth for their past experience, the negative automatic thoughts measured by the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire, and life satisfaction, negative and positive emotions of participants were measured by the Subjective Well-being Scale for their present level. Mediation analysis through the bootstrap sampling method via indirect custom dialog was used to examine data. The models supported the hypotheses, the retrospective reports of parental warmth in childhood predict the subjective well-being of emerging adults. The automatic negative thoughts had competitive mediation on this relationship. The perceived parental warmth in childhood decreases automatic negative thoughts, then turns to affect greater subjective well-being in adulthood. The current study results contribute to the counselling practice by suggesting that decreasing negative automatic thoughts could benefit the subjective well-being of emerging adults. Further, parental warmth interventions and family counselling have the potential to enhance these benefits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".