MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992285864 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13852

Being Alone with Others: A Unique Form of Social Contact and Its Impact on Momentary Positive Affect

2019· dissertation· en· W2992285864 on OpenAlexaff
Karin Sobocko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)BelongingnessSocial psychologyPsychologyExperience sampling methodSocial contactDevelopmental psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social relationships are essential to human well-being. Although people receive the most benefit from interactions with others who are close to them (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000), the need for human contact can also be satisfied through minimal interactions with others (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014a, 2014b). This dissertation extended the research regarding the benefits of contact with acquaintances by proposing that being alone with others, i.e. being around others without verbally interacting with them, could be an alternative way of satisfying the need for social contact and improving positive affect. In an experience sampling study (N = 453), being alone with others was associated with similar positive (PA) and negative affect (NA), and lower sense of belonging, than being completely alone. Additional results supported existing research associating the best affective outcomes with interactions with close others, and higher positive affect after talking to acquaintances than not talking to them (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014a). A second study was designed to test: whether merely sharing a space with others produces a higher sense of belonging; whether this belongingness could explain better outcomes of being alone with others compared to being alone; whether effects depend on performing the same task as others. Participants (N = 265) were randomly assigned to watch a pleasant video: alone, together with a confederate, or alone when a confederate was doing something else. I found no differences in the amplification of PA and sense of belonging, or in reduction of NA between the social conditions; however, these outcomes were also not different in the alone condition. Sharing a space with others, regardless of simultaneously performing a task together, did not lead to better outcomes than being alone. Trait introversion-extraversion was also explored, and two main trends were found in both studies: extraverts reported higher PA and sense of belonging than introverts in all situations, and introverts and extraverts reported similar amplifications of affective states in different social and experimental conditions. Overall, both studies revealed that being alone with others was worse for people's affective outcomes and sense of belonging than being completely alone, contrary to hypotheses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207