Changes in positive and negative peer influences and depressive symptoms from adolescence to young adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peers are believed to continue as prominent sources of influence for young adults. However, having peers who use alcohol and drugs is associated with depressive symptoms in young adults and research on the effects of having peers who model positive activities beyond adolescence is scarce. METHOD: In this 10-year study of 644 Canadian youth (52% female), we used multilevel modeling to examine the effects of within-person and between-person differences in the interplay of peer behaviours and changes in depressive symptoms between ages 14 and 25. Data were collected via face-to-face interviews and surveys for private topics. RESULTS: Youth with close friends who used drugs and alcohol consistently reported more depressive symptoms at each age, whereas having friends who engaged in positive activities was associated with fewer depressive symptoms, especially during adolescence. Moreover, at times when youth had more substance-using peers than usual (within person variation), they also reported more symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Substance-using peer contexts convey both short- and long-term risks for depressive symptoms. However, the protective effects of having peers who are engaged in positive activities, while generally protective, may be reduced in young adulthood. It is possible that older youth withdraw from peers and activities as their depression worsens, and prosocial activities become less supervised by parents, more optional, and more expensive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".