Peer Rejection and Physical Health Problems in Early Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rejection from the peer group may constitute an important source of stress that may weaken children's immune system and leave them vulnerable to infection and physical illness. Controlling for family adversity and depressed mood, this study examined the predictive link between peer rejection and physical health problems, as well as the putative moderating effect of adolescents' reactivity/emotional negativity in this context. METHOD: A total of 122 high school students (50% girls) were assessed over two consecutive years in grades 7 (time [T] 1) and 8 (time [T] 2). More than 90% of the participants were white and French speaking and were from average socioeconomic backgrounds. Physical health problems at T1 and T2 as well as depression symptoms at T1 were assessed using adolescent self-reports. Peer rejection at T1 was assessed through peer nominations. Reactivity/negative emotionality at T1 was assessed via teacher ratings. Family adversity at T1 was assessed via mother reports. RESULTS: Peer rejection at T1 predicted an increase in physical health problems from T1 to T2, even when controlling for physical health problems and depression symptoms at T1. This result, however, was only true for girls with moderate or high levels of reactivity/negative emotionality. For boys, peer rejection was unrelated to change in physical health problems. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings are in line with the diathesis stress model of disease and emphasize the need for health education programs that specifically target girls and that foster problem-solving skills to help vulnerable adolescents cope more effectively with peer conflict.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".