Social Anxiety and Social Surrogacy in College Roommate Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social surrogate hypothesis proposes that people with higher social anxiety (HSA) recruit others to accompany them into social situations. We tested this hypothesis with college roommates using both hypothetical (Study 1) and retrospective (Study 2) measures, while assessing roommate's perceptions of recruitment and how social surrogacy might influence liking between roommates. Across two studies, we found that HSA participants were less likely to enter social situations alone (i.e. higher conditional entry); however, HSA was related to recruitment only when participants considered hypothetical scenarios, not when recruitment was assessed globally or retrospectively. There was little evidence that HSA participants’ roommates were aware of these behaviours, although there was preliminary evidence that less social anxiety might increase liking when roommates perceived more conditional entry. We also found preliminary evidence that social anxiety may be negatively related to liking when participants were less likely to recruit an alternate surrogate if their roommate was unavailable. Taken together, these preliminary findings emphasize the importance of studying the surrogacy process from an interpersonal/dyadic perspective and using methods that will differentiate between anticipated (which may be assessed by hypothetical scenarios) and enacted recruitment behaviours. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".