Threats to communion and agency mediate associations between stressor type and daily coping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Basic human values have been categorized into two dimensions: those that are self or agentically focused, and those that are other or communally focused. We apply this model to cognitive appraisals of stress and argue that threat appraisals also fall into these two dimensions. The mediating roles of communal and agentic threats in linking stressors with coping responses were examined. DESIGN: A daily process methodology was used. METHODS: Three-hundred and fifty undergraduate students were followed midday and evening over one week, completing structured electronic diaries regarding their experiences of the past half-day. Participants described stressors in open-ended format, which were then coded into social stress, achievement stress, and other stress categories. They also completed scales measuring stress appraisals and coping. RESULTS: Communal threat mediated links between social stressors and empathic responding, support seeking, and confrontation. Agentic threat mediated links between achievement stressors and empathic responding, support seeking, confrontation, and problem solving. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals tend to cope in ways that maintain communion when they perceive communion to be threatened; they tend to cope in ways that maintain agency when they perceive agency to be threatened.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".