MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306870060 · doi:10.1177/01650254221133296

Solitude and affect during emerging adulthood: When, and for whom, spending time alone is related to positive and negative affect during social interactions

2022· article· en· W4306870060 on OpenAlexaff
Hope I. White, Julie C. Bowker, Ryan Adams, Robert J. Coplan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolitudePsychologyAffect (linguistics)Experience sampling methodShynessDevelopmental psychologyYoung adultSocial psychologyClinical psychologyAnxietyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examines within- and between-person associations between emerging adults’ daily time spent alone and their positive/negative affect during social interactions. We also consider whether motivations for seeking solitude (shyness, unsociability, avoidance) moderate these associations. Participants were 411 emerging adults (ages 18–26 years; 51% female; 52% ethnic minority) who reported on their motivations for solitude and completed daily reports of their time spent alone and positive/negative affect experienced during social interactions for 7 consecutive days. Among the results, multi-level modeling indicated that on days when emerging adults spent more time alone than usual, they experienced increased levels of high and low arousal positive affect when they interacted with others. Interactions between shy and avoidant motivations and change in time spent alone also emerged, with follow-up analyses indicating that for highly and moderately shy and avoidant emerging adults, days with more time spent alone than usual were associated with greater reports of anxious affect during social interactions. Findings suggest that although many emerging adults may find social interactions more enjoyable on days with increased time alone, those who actively seek solitude as an escape from perceived stressful or unpleasant social circumstances may not.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207