Examining the Interactions Between Subjective Social Status and Self‐Referential Processing on Social Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Subjective social status in school (or school social status) refers to youths’ perception of their position relative to peers in school. School social status has been associated with various socio‐emotional outcomes in adolescents, such as internalizing symptoms (e.g., social anxiety and depression). Another closely related construct that undergoes significant development during adolescence is self‐referential processing, namely, the processing of information that relates to or references oneself. During adolescence, youths not only experience elevated internalizing symptoms but also become more concerned with their self‐image and are more likely to derive self‐evaluations from their social experiences with peers, for example, their social status in school. However, it remains unclear to what extent these two important social constructs, school social status and self‐referential processing, interact with each other to predict internalizing symptoms in adolescents. A community sample of one hundred fifteen 9‐ to 12‐year‐old early adolescents (66 girls, mean/SD = 11.00/1.16 years) completed an EEG self‐referent encoding task (SRET) and questionnaires on school social status and symptoms of social anxiety and depression. We found an interaction between school social status and self‐referential processing in relation to social anxiety (i.e., higher school social status predicted greater social anxiety symptoms for those with lower positive self‐referential scores), although this effect was only significant when uncorrected. There were no interactions for depressive symptoms. Our study contributed preliminary, novel evidence on the relationships between school social status, self‐referential processing, and internalizing symptoms during the transition into adolescence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".