THE SOCIAL BASIS OF WORRY IN THREE SAMPLES: HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS, UNIVERSITY STUDENTS, AND OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comorbidity data between Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Social Phobia, studies of frequently reported worry themes, and various correlational studies have led to the idea that worries may have a social basis. This study investigates the social basis of worry in three samples with different ages. The samples consisted of 224 high-school students, 607 undergraduate students, and 125 older adults. All participants completed the Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ) and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). We hypothesized that for each sample, the first factor extracted following factor analysis on WDQ items would reflect the most social content, and that social-related factors would be the best predictors of the global tendency to worry as measured by the PSWQ. Results supported the hypotheses with the exception of older adults, for whom the first extracted factor was not as obviously social as for the other two samples. Possible explanations are considered and theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".