The contribution of vulnerability to emotional contagion to the expression of psychological distress in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the differential weight of a wide range of factors-sociodemographic factors, indicators of autonomy, social support, coping styles, vulnerability to emotional contagion, and empathy-in the presence of two profiles of psychological distress and in their absence. This cross-sectional study included 170 older adults. As assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), 65.9% of the individuals in the sample had a clinical or subthreshold level of anxiety and depression (score > 1). Based on the HADS's clinical cutoff scores for the anxiety and depression subscales, three profiles were created for the no distress, anxiety, and anxious depression groups. The profiles did not differ on demographic indicators except for sex. Vulnerability to emotional contagion, satisfaction with the social network and coping styles emerged as factors weighing the likelihood of being in either of the psychological distress groups relative to individuals with no distress. After controlling for adversity and psychotropic treatment, vulnerability to emotional contagion had the strongest relationship with both psychological distress profiles. Future research, such as a prospective longitudinal study, may provide an opportunity to explain the direction of the relationship between psychological distress and the factors studied, particularly vulnerability to emotional contagion.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".