Supportive Interpersonal Interactions and Affective Experiences during Exam Periods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examinations, a salient stressor for undergraduates, arouse negative emotions that can hinder performance. Supportive social relationships may be advantageous during exam periods given that social baseline theory proposes that strong social relationships help one manage stressors effectively and efficiently. This experience sampling study examined the roles of two facets of supportive relationships, emotional closeness and interpersonal emotion regulation (ER), in daily affect around exam days and in perceived exam performance. A sample of 191 Canadian undergraduates completed baseline measures and daily prompts for one month. Baseline measures gauged emotional closeness and interpersonal ER; daily prompts assessed perceived emotional closeness, negative affect (NA), positive affect (PA), and perceptions of performance. Students demonstrated a pattern of worse affect when exams approached and an improvement of affect in the days that followed exams. Specifically, they reported higher daily NA on the two days before exam days compared to days with no recent or upcoming exams. Further, students reported lower daily NA post-exams compared to before exams. Additionally, we found lower self-reported daily PA on the two days before exams compared to days with no recent or upcoming exams, and higher daily PA post-exams compared to before exams. Notably, trait use of some interpersonal ER strategies interacted with exam period: students who reported higher use of these strategies demonstrated smaller differences in PA across the days before and after exams (e.g., smaller dip in PA before exams) compared to students who reported lower use of these strategies. We found some evidence of interpersonal ER serving a more limited role in NA during exam periods. Furthermore, most interpersonal ER strategies at baseline and emotional closeness before an exam predicted perceiving exam performance less negatively. The present findings suggest that prosocial interpersonal processes may help students better manage their subjective experiences during stressful midterm exam periods.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".