General Mattering, Anti-mattering, and Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".