COVID-19, Time to Oneself, and Loneliness: Creativity as a Resource
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing to reduce the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 has increased alone time, with unintended mental health ramifications including increased loneliness, which may be particularly detrimental for older adults. We investigated time-varying associations between daily time to oneself and loneliness, and the role of everyday creativity as a resource. METHOD: 126 adults aged 18-84 completed online questionnaires including a 10-day daily diary module, during which they self-reported alone time, everyday creativity, and loneliness. Data were analyzed using multilevel models, controlling for study day, participation date, gender, and relationship status. RESULTS: Greater average amounts of alone time were associated with greater loneliness, an association that was stronger in old age. In a daily context, individuals reported feeling lonelier on days when they had more time to themselves than usual. This within-person association was weaker with older age. Everyday creativity did not moderate alone time-loneliness associations. However, holding time to oneself constant, participants felt less lonely and less bothered by alone time on days when they were more creative than usual. DISCUSSION: Participating in creative behaviors (e.g., pursuing arts and crafts) might be linked with reduced loneliness. Intervention studies are needed to investigate whether fostering creativity could help promote mental well-being in times when people, especially older adults, are vulnerable to loneliness and associated health risks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".