Differential effects of received social support and mental health symptomology on affect in adults: an Ecological Momentary Assessment study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perceived social support is robustly associated with affect and mental health. However, there is a relative lack of consensus regarding the effects of objectively received social support. Extant research is largely cross-sectional and thus potentially limited by recall bias around these time-varied variables. METHODS: Addressing this, the current study employed Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to examine the relationship between received social support, positive/negative affect, and mental health symptomology (PTSD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms). Trauma-exposed participants (N = 88) completed baseline assessments of mental health, and EMA of positive and negative affect and received instrumental and emotional support at 5 timepoints per day over a 7-day period. Analyses employed mixed effects modelling to assess the effect of received social support on affect over time for adults, and whether this association differed based on mental health symptomology. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable. RESULTS: Results indicated received instrumental and emotional support were positively associated with positive affect. Average received instrumental support was positively associated with average negative affect, whereas recent received instrumental support was negatively associated with current negative affect. Findings did not significantly differ based on levels of mental health symptomology. CONCLUSIONS: Received emotional and instrumental support may therefore be related to both current and average mood, and be viable targets for intervention particularly for those with previous trauma exposure. Implications for improved understanding of the relationship between received social support and affect are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".