Cognitive processing in the aftermath of relationship dissolution: Associations with concurrent and prospective distress and posttraumatic growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-marital romantic relationship dissolution is amongst the most stressful life events experienced by young adults. Yet, some individuals experience posttraumatic growth following relationship dissolution. Little is known about the specific and differential contribution of trait-like and event-specific cognitive processing styles to each of these outcomes. A longitudinal design was employed in which trait-like (brooding and reflection) and dissolution-specific (intrusive and deliberate) cognitive processing was examined as predictors of growth (Posttraumatic Growth Inventory) and distress (Breakup Distress Scale) following a recent relationship dissolution. Initially, 148 participants completed measures of trait-like and dissolution-specific cognitive processing, growth, and distress (T1). A subsample completed a seven-month follow-up (T2). Higher frequency of relationship-dissolution intrusive thoughts predicted concurrent distress after accounting for brooding and relationship characteristics. Further, higher brooding and lower reflection predicted higher distress prospectively. Concurrent growth was predicted by both higher brooding and more deliberate relationship-dissolution thoughts. Prospectively, T1 dissolution intrusive thoughts predicted higher T2 deliberate thoughts, and the interaction between these two constructs predicted higher T2 growth. Therefore, deliberately thinking of the dissolution was related to positive psychological outcomes. In contrast, intrusive dissolution cognitions and a tendency for brooding had a mixed (paradoxical) association with psychological adjustment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".