Associations Between Interpersonal Relationships and Negative Affect in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Previous studies focused mostly on predicting the adjustment of adolescents based on distinct coping strategies. However, people generally do not use only one coping strategy, but rather select from a repertoire of coping strategies. This study aimed to identify these repertoires by categorizing adolescents by the coping strategies they use and by examining whether these typologies moderate the well-established relationship between negative affect and interpersonal relationships (e.g., close, acquaintances, alone). The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to assess negative affect and the interpersonal relationships of 280 adolescents (M age = 14.19, SD age = .54; 59% girls) at nine randomly chosen times on six consecutive days. Coping strategies were measured with a questionnaire prior to ESM. Latent profile analysis revealed two profiles: passive copers and active copers. Furthermore, all participants reported less negative affect when they were with people with whom they had close interpersonal relationships (family and friends) than when they were with acquaintances (class or teammates) or alone. No moderation of coping typologies was revealed. The results underscore the importance of close interpersonal relationships to buffer against negative affect during adolescence and support the notion that the relationship between negative affect and close interpersonal relationships is strong, as it is not moderated by the method used to deal with negative events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".