Brief report: Social comparison, hypercompetitiveness, and indirect aggression: Associations with loneliness and mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indirect aggression is commonly used in adulthood, but most researchers have focused on this behavior in romantic relationships or from an intrasexual competition perspective. Therefore, we aimed to understand the social characteristics and mental health correlates of indirect aggression by combining perspectives from developmental psychopathology and evolutionary psychology. We examined: (1) whether social characteristics (social comparison, hypercompetitiveness) contributed to indirect aggression (perpetration, victimization) and (2) whether there were indirect effects from indirect aggression (perpetration, victimization) to mental health difficulties through loneliness. In a cross‐sectional sample of 475 young adults (57.7% women, 51.6% White, M age = 20.2, SD age = 2.18), path analyses revealed that social comparison predicted indirect aggression victimization, which indirectly predicted mental health difficulties (depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms) through loneliness. In contrast, indirect aggression perpetration was only predicted by hypercompetitiveness. The findings highlight that reframing cognitions associated with social comparison could help prevent indirect aggression and mental health difficulties among young people.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".