An affect in its own right: Investigating the case for the independence of social safeness from PA and NA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Social safeness is the warm soothing affect system that is theorized to motivate and reinforce social connection and attachment processes (Gilbert et al., 2008). Together with positive and negative affect (PA and NA), it comprises Gilbert’s tripartite model of affect (Gilbert et al., 2008). This three-dimensional model stands in contrast to two-dimensional models including the model from which PA and NA were derived (Watson et al., 1988). The independence of social safeness from and precise relationships with PA and NA are not well established. The aim of the present work was to investigate the precise relationship of social safeness with PA and NA using a variety of designs and populations.Article One investigated the independence of social safeness from PA and NA in three samples. Sample One was a cross-sectional community study (N = 1889) recruited using the online tool Mechanical Turk. Samples Two (N = 93) and Three (N = 99) were daily diary studies that recruited university students who completed the study both in the lab and online. The independence of safeness from PA and NA was examined first factorially using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Second, safeness was regressed on PA and NA in a structural equation model (SEM) to determine whether its reliable variance could be fully explained by PA and/or NA. Third, in Samples Two and Three, the unique relationships of social safeness with theoretically relevant constructs were examined in multi-level SEM. These constructs included perceived stress; perceived, received and given social support; and self-reassurance. Social safeness was found to be factorially distinct in every sample. While PA and NA did predict substantial variance in social safeness, they were by no means able to fully account for safeness’s reliable variance. Social safeness had significant bivariate relationships with virtually all stress, support, and reassurance indicators. It showed unique relationships with all indicators at the within-person level and with stress and perceived support at the between-persons level. In summary, social safeness showed strong evidence of independence in all three sets of analyses.Article Two aimed to further investigate the independence of social safeness from PA and NA while also examining its unique relationships with clinical symptom change. This study was conducted with 92 participants recruited from 18 Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR: Kabat-Zinn, 1982) groups, 65 of whom completed the program. MBSR is a seven-week program of meditation and mindfulness training. The sample had elevated levels of both anxiety and depressive symptoms at intake. This study replicated the analyses from Article One supporting the independence of social safeness from PA and NA factorially and in variance explained. Social safeness predicted several clinically relevant personality constructs: mindfulness, self-reassurance, self-criticism, and life satisfaction. It predicted changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms over the course of the group intervention. All analyses were conducted with and without controlling for PA and NA. Social safeness had a bivariate relationship with all study variables except the acceptance subscale of mindfulness. It uniquely predicted self-reassurance, self-criticism, and life satisfaction. Safeness uniquely predicted change in anxiety but not depressive symptoms.Taken together, Articles One and Two strongly supported the independence of social safeness from PA and NA, implying that two-factor models are insufficient to fully describe self-reported affect, and a third factor, social safeness, is required. The present work provided important empirical support for the relationship of safeness with support processes related to attachment. The relationships of safeness with clinical symptomology and personality variables supported its clinical utility and the conceptual framework underlying Compassion Focused Therapy (Gilbert, 2014)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».