Sleep More, Quarrel Less: Associations Between Day‐to‐Day Variations in Objective Sleep and Interpersonal Behavior and Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relation between sleep and irritable affect has been studied extensively. However, whether this relation is bidirectional remains unclear. Furthermore, less is still known about associations between sleep and interpersonal behaviors and perceptions during social interactions. The current study examined bidirectional within-person relations between actigraphy-based sleep, and irritable affect, quarrelsome behavior, and agreeable perceptions of others assessed using event-contingent recording of social interactions in a sample of n = 50 participants during either 20 or 40 days. We found that after a night of worse sleep than usual, participants reported more anger and frustration the next day (-0.12, p ≤ 0.01). The reverse was not found. There were no direct associations between sleep and quarrelsome behavior or between sleep and agreeable perceptions. However, worse sleep than usual was indirectly related to more quarrelsome behavior (-0.05, p ≤ 0.001) and less agreeable perceptions (0.06, p ≤ 0.001); that is, via increased irritable affect. These mediation effects imply that poor sleep may impair the quality of one's social interactions. Therefore, targeting sleep could be a means to improve personal and professional relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".