Co‐rumination across in‐person and digital communication: Associations with affect and relationship closeness in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the prominence of interpersonal emotion regulation, particularly during adolescence, it is a relatively understudied area of investigation. Co-rumination is an interpersonal emotion regulation strategy that is frequently used by adolescents. Traditional examinations of co-rumination have focused on its occurrence in person, while largely overlooking digital modes of communication. This study was the first to investigate adolescents' co-rumination across multiple communication modalities (i.e., in person, text, social media, phone) and its downstream association with affect and relationship closeness. Specifically, we examined: (1) the frequency of co-rumination across modalities, (2) the effect of co-rumination in one modality on the future use of co-rumination within that same modality (i.e., stability) and across other modalities (i.e., generalization); and (3) the prospective relation of co-rumination on negative affect, positive affect, and relationship closeness. METHODS: = 12.70 years) residing in Canada completed twice-daily diary surveys for 14 days. RESULTS: Findings indicated that adolescents co-ruminate across all modes of communication, particularly in person. There also was evidence of co-rumination stability and generalization over time for some modes of communication (within phone and from social media to in-person interactions), but not for others. Co-rumination through text and over the phone had affective and/or social benefits, whereas co-rumination through social media predicted diminished positive affect. We also identified ways these findings differed by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for adolescents' emotional and social development and the field of co-rumination are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".