Communication modality matters: Co‐rumination via in‐person versus digital modalities has different prospective associations with depression and friendship quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Co-rumination is an interpersonal emotion regulation strategy in which negative feelings and problems are discussed perseveratively with another person. Although co-rumination is salient in adolescence, research to date has focused on co-rumination occurring in person and has not kept pace with the surge in digital communication that begins in adolescence. This study examined the degree, associations among, and consequences (i.e., depressive symptoms, and friendship quality) of adolescents' co-rumination via in-person, text, social media, and phone modalities. METHODS: = 12.83 years) residing in Canada, completed self-report questionnaires on co-rumination, depressive symptoms, and friendship quality for up to 2 years. RESULTS: Adolescents engaged in co-rumination across all modalities, particularly in-person. Findings indicated a negative association between in-person co-rumination at baseline and in-person co-rumination over time. Whereas less text co-rumination was associated with increased depressive symptoms over time, greater phone co-rumination was associated with increased depressive symptoms over time. Although greater in-person co-rumination was positively associated with friendship quality concurrently, it was negatively associated with friendship quality prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, co-rumination outcomes may vary depending on communication modality. Implications for adolescents' mental and social wellbeing are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".