Who moved with you? The companionship of significant others reduces movers’ motivation to make new friends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated how residential moves with versus without the companionship of significant others would affect people’s motivation to make new friends. Studies 1a and 1b showed that the companionship of significant others predicted fewer new friends among university students who moved within the same country (Study 1a) and to a different country (Study 1b), suggesting that the companionship of significant others was associated with a lower level of motivation to make new friends. In Study 2, the results of an experiment demonstrated that the companionship of a significant other reduced movers’ motivation to make new friends, and this was explained by positive affect but not negative affect. Specifically, the companionship of a significant other, compared with the companionship of an acquaintance or no companionship, led to stronger positive affect, which, in turn, reduced motivation to make new friends. Taken together, these findings call for more nuanced theory on the influence of residential mobility on well‐being and social networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".