Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal spin, spin, refers to within-person variability in social behavior. This variability has typically been associated with potentially problematic personality characteristics and found to be maladaptive for both personal and interpersonal wellbeing. Using data collected as part of a multimethod longitudinal project examining the interpersonal consequences of intraindividual variability, I examined processes which may underlie spin and its effects on well-being and social functioning. A large sample of business students were recruited to participate in a 20-day Event-Contingent Recording procedure in which they were asked to report on the situational, behavioral, affective, and perceptual aspects of their social interactions using a smartphone application. They also completed personality measures prior to and outcome measures following this procedure. In Manuscript 1, I use data collected prior to and during the ECR procedure to provide support for the use of an app-based procedure as an alternative to a pen-and-paper procedure for measuring spin by demonstrating the stability of spin scores over the study period and by replicating and expanding on personality and situational correlates associated with spin. In Manuscript 2, I use data collected during the ECR procedure to explore the perceptual processes which may be associated with spin and which may underlie spin and its effects on social functioning. In Manuscript 3, I use data collected during and immediately after the ECR procedure to propose a possible mechanism by which spin may exert deleterious effects on well-being. These studies integrate findings regarding the antecedents, social impairments, and maladjustment associated with spin, enhancing our understanding of the processes which may underlie spin and its effects. Taken together, these findings will suggest that spin may be conceptualized as behavioral dysregulation that arises in part because of perceptual and affective fluctuations across interactions and reactivity to interpersonal perception within interactions. These fluctuations and this reactivity may be related to Neuroticism and constitute a kind of rejection sensitivity. I speculate that this manner of engaging with and responding to others may be experienced by others as off-putting and may evoke responses from others that contribute to individuals with higher spin experiencing their social needs as being unmet and that augment their insecurity, maintain their dysregulation, increase their sense of social disconnection, and erode their well-being
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".