Through thick and thin?: Young adults’ implicit beliefs about friendship and their reported use of dissolution and maintenance strategies with same‐gender friends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the documented importance of friendship for the well‐being of young adults, there is a paucity of work mapping factors associated with friendship dissolution and maintenance during this developmental period. We examined whether implicit theories of friendships – specifically, growth beliefs (i.e., the belief that friendships can be developed) and destiny beliefs (i.e., the belief that friendships are either meant to work or not) — were associated with endorsement of dissolution and maintenance responses in two types of challenging situations occurring with same‐gender friends. One hundred forty‐five undergraduate students (80 females, Mage = 20.71, SD = 1.46) completed an online questionnaire. Participants read twelve hypothetical situations depicting transgressions by a friend (i.e., violations of friendship expectancies) or conflicts of interest (i.e., differences of needs, desires, or opinions) and reported how likely they would be to engage in strategies reflecting maintaining the friendship or dissolving it, either by ending it completely or diminishing its quality. They also completed a scale assessing implicit theories of friendships. Participants endorsed dissolving the friendship more strongly when the friend had transgressed than in conflicts of interest, whereas maintenance strategies were endorsed more strongly in conflicts than in transgressions. Moreover, higher destiny beliefs were associated with greater endorsement of ending the friendship and weaker endorsement of maintaining it; in contrast, higher growth beliefs were associated with greater endorsement of maintenance. Findings provide new insight into when and why young adults may dissolve or maintain a friendship.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".