When best friendships end: young adolescents' responses to hypothetical best friendship dissolution and associations with real-life friendship outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This study examined young adolescents' responses to two types of hypothetical best friendship dissolution (complete and downgrade dissolutions). Responses included their attributions, emotional reactions, and coping strategies. It also considered whether responses vary across dissolution type and are related to the real-life friendship-specific outcomes of best friendship dissolution and friendship quantity. Method Data were collected from 318 young adolescents at two time points (Time 1 (T1): Mage = 11.87 years) and included a newly-developed vignette measure of responses to hypothetical complete and downgrade dissolutions (T1), real-life complete and downgrade dissolutions experienced by participants (T2), and friendship (T1, T2). Results Findings showed that adolescents responded differently in their emotional reactions and coping strategies to hypothetical complete and downgrade dissolutions. Path models revealed unique linkages between several responses, such as vengeful coping and the real-life friendship-specific outcomes. Discussion Findings suggest variability in how young adolescents respond to hypothetical best friendship dissolutions and that such variability may explain differences in their real-life friendships.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".