The Risks of Being a Wallflower: Exploring Links Between Introversion, Aspects of Solitude, and Indices of Well-Being in Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to examine the unique relations between introversion and indices of well-being while accounting for aspects of solitude (i.e., time spent alone, shyness, affinity for solitude, and negative thinking while alone). Participants were n = 1036 adolescents (15–19 years of age, M = 16.19 years, SD = 0.58; 67% girls) who completed a series of self-report measures assessing introversion, time spent alone, negative thinking while alone, motivations for solitude (shyness, affinity for solitude), and indices of well-being (i.e., loneliness, positive/negative affect, general well-being). Overall, results from correlational analyses indicated that introversion was associated with poorer functioning across all indices of well-being. However, when controlling for aspects of solitude, results from hierarchical regression analyses indicated a complex set of associations that varied across indices of well-being. Introversion remained associated significantly and negatively with well-being and positive affect, was no longer related significantly to loneliness, and became related significantly and negatively to negative affect. Findings are discussed in terms of how personality characteristics and aspects of solitude can impact the well-being of adolescents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".