MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412628080 · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102626

General Mattering, Anti-mattering, and Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412628080 on OpenAlex
Benedetta Tonini, Sara Bocci Benucci, Gordon L. Flett, Giulia Fioravanti, Silvia Casale

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology Review · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Treatments and Assessments
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDepressive symptomsMeta-analysisClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryAnxietyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The concepts of mattering and anti-mattering have garnered increasing attention in recent years, especially in relation to psychological well-being. Mattering refers to the subjective sense that one is significant to others, while anti-mattering reflects feelings of being marginalized, insignificant, and invisible with respect to others. These constructs have been linked to mental health outcomes, particularly depressive symptoms. Therefore, the aim of the present meta-analysis is to examine the association between depressive symptoms and (i) general mattering and (ii) anti-mattering. METHOD: A keyword-based systematic literature search was performed for eligible studies in which general mattering/anti-mattering and depressive symptoms were assessed. The meta-analysis was conducted following the most updated PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-nine independent samples were included in quantitative analysis. Out of these, thirty-seven assessed the association between general mattering and depressive symptoms for a total of 24,397 participants (% Women = 48.09; mean age = 20.55 ± 17.24; range = 12.30-83.50) and sixteen explored the relationship between anti-mattering and depressive symptoms for a total of 9372 participants (% Women = 49.96 %; mean age = 23.62 ± 7.60; age range = 12.03-40.06). Meta-analytic results of the random effects model showed a significant negative correlation between general mattering and depressive symptoms (Fisher's Z = -0.41; CI: -0.47, -0.36; Z = 14.85; p < 0.001)) and a significant positive association between anti-mattering and depressive symptoms (Fisher's Z = 0.67; CI: 0.58, 0.76; Z = 14.95; p < 0.001). Anti-mattering exhibited a significantly stronger (positive) association with depressive symptoms compared to general mattering. Age did not moderate these associations, while gender did. DISCUSSION: These findings provide robust evidence for the significant relationship between both mattering and anti-mattering with depressive symptoms, also having important implications for both clinical interventions and future research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.542
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.094 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it