Perceived distress and relational boredom during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of shared leisure time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic was a time of heightened distress that may have informed couples’ time engaging in shared leisure and, ultimately, negative relational outcomes. A growth-security framework was used to classify shared leisure time into security-restorative (i.e., familiar and comfortable) and growth-enhancing (i.e., novel and exciting). We followed a community sample (N = 257) of people in intimate relationships over six-weeks during the lockdown. Each week we measured perceived distress, subjective shared leisure time, and relational boredom. Multilevel modeling revealed a lack of evidence to support distress increasing shared security-restorative leisure time. However, perceived distress was positively related to relational boredom. Specifically, people who were more distressed than others reduced their time spent engaging in growth-enhancing activities with their partner which, in turn, was associated with relational boredom. Therefore, in the long-term, high environmental distress resulted in less time spent on growth-enhancing shared leisure, likely resulting in more relational boredom.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".