Early life adverse experiences and loneliness among young adults: The mediating role of social processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loneliness has been described as endemic among young people. Such feelings of social isolation ‘even in a crowd’ are likely linked to adverse early life experiences that serve to diminish perceptions of social support and intensify negative social interactions. It was suggested in the present series of survey studies that childhood abuse, which compromises a child’s sense of safety in relationships, may affect social processes that contribute to loneliness in young adulthood. Study 1 assessed different adverse childhood and adult experiences in relation to loneliness among young adults ( N = 171). Linear regression analyses indicated that childhood abuse was uniquely associated with greater loneliness, and this relationship was partially mediated by the perceived availability of social support. Study 2 ( N = 289) assessed different forms of childhood abuse and demonstrated that early life emotional abuse was a unique predictor of loneliness, and this relationship was fully mediated by lower perceived support or value in social connections (social connectedness) and more frequent unsupportive interactions with friends. Study 3 evaluated the implications of the age of occurrence of abuse ( N = 566). Both emotional and sexual abuse predicted young adult loneliness regardless of age; abuse that was recalled to have occurred at very early ages (0–5 years) was not predictive of loneliness over and above consideration of events that happened in older childhood. These relationships were at least partially mediated by perceived social support, social connectedness, and in the case of emotional abuse, unsupportive interactions with friends. Our results add to mounting evidence pointing to the prevalence of loneliness among young adults and the links to adverse early life experiences that may serve to shape appraisals of safety, value, and personal worth in social relationships.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".