Should I Stay or Should I Go? Ambivalence and the Opposing Forces of Nostalgia and Optimism in Recovery from Addiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that nostalgia prepares individuals with addiction for change, however, the current thesis examines nostalgia's negative impact on those in recovery.Three studies were conducted: the first included (N= 304) individuals recovering from disordered gambling, the second included (N=604) individuals recovering from alcohol use disorder, and the third included (N=167) individuals recovering from alcohol use disorder over two time points.Participants' addiction-related nostalgia (ARN), optimism, and ambivalence about recovery were measured.Results support the hypothesis that ARN during recovery tempts individuals back to addictive behaviors.Nostalgia hampers recovery, even at high levels of optimism about the future, leading to ambivalence.In Study 3, ambivalence and ARN correlate with higher relapse risk over time.Findings emphasize the need to reduce ARN and foster optimism to promote successful recovery.Future research should explore these effects in clinical populations and among individuals recovering from other addictions or harmful behaviors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".