MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123881165 · doi:10.1177/1948550620988460

Singlehood and Attunement of Self-Esteem to Friendships

2021· article· en· W3123881165 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra N. Fisher, Danu Anthony Stinson, Joanne V. Wood, John G. Holmes, Jessica J. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Psychological and Personality Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttunementFriendshipPsychologySelf-esteemDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMediationRomanceInterpersonal relationshipAttachment theoryBelongingnessQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Romantic relationships activate a process of psychological attunement whereby self-esteem becomes responsive to the romantic bond, thereby potentially benefitting relationship quality and bolstering self-esteem. Yet some people are romantically single, raising the question: Do single people also exhibit psychological attunement? In a 2-year longitudinal study of young adults ( N = 279), we test whether singles psychologically attune to their friendships. Multilevel modeling revealed that within-person fluctuations in friendship quality predicted within-person fluctuations in self-esteem, and this association was stronger for singles than for partnered people. A cross-sectional mediation analysis also revealed that singles invested more in their friendships than partnered people, and greater friendship investment predicted greater friendship quality and self-esteem later on. Finally, singles maintain their friendship quality over time while partnered people experience declines. Taken together, these results suggest that singles are psychologically attuned to their friendships, and such attunement may benefit their belongingness and self-esteem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations53
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Psychological and Personality ScienceSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207