Solitude and affect during emerging adulthood: When, and for whom, spending time alone is related to positive and negative affect during social interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".