Social relationship quality buffers negative affective correlates of everyday solitude in an adult lifespan and an older adult sample.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging takes place in a social context but older adults also spend a significant amount of their time alone. Solitude (the objective state of being alone and without social interaction) has been associated with negative experiences but also with specific benefits. We examine the importance of social relationships for time-varying associations between affective experiences and solitude. Using repeated daily life assessments from an adult life span sample (Study 1, N = 183, age: 20-81 years) and an older adult sample (Study 2, N = 97, age: 50-85 years), we examined the moderating role of social relationship quality on within-person solitude-affect associations. Data were analyzed using multilevel models controlling for gender, age, overall amount of time in solitude, retirement status, marital status, education, and current work activity. Higher relationship quality was associated with higher average affective well-being. Compared to being with others, participants reported lower levels of high-arousal positive affect (PA) during solitude in both studies. In Study 1, solitude was also associated with higher levels of low-arousal negative affect (NA) and higher levels of low-arousal PA compared to when with others. Across both studies, individuals with higher quality relationships reported lesser increases in low-arousal NA when in solitude, as compared to individuals with lower quality relationships. Findings highlight that solitude is experienced less negatively for individuals embedded in a context of higher quality social relationships. Thus, preservation and promotion of social resources in older adulthood may be important to ward off potential negative ramifications of spending a significant amount of time alone. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".