When Social Interactions Feel Less Meaningful: Age Differences in Solitude Preference in Daily Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solitude and social interactions have often been studied separately, each linked to distinct personality profiles (e.g., low vs. high extraversion). However, in daily life, these experiences may be interconnected as individuals transition between time alone and time with others. This study investigated whether lower-quality social interactions during the day are associated with a greater preference for solitude at the end of the day. Age moderation in this association was also examined. As younger individuals are more likely to engage in social interactions due to obligatory demands (e.g., work, childcare), we hypothesized that the proposed association is stronger among younger adults compared to older adults. Using daily life assessments up to 10 consecutive days, we assessed perceived meaningfulness of daily social interactions and preference for solitude at the end of the day in 128 individuals from South Korea and Canada (Age: M = 48.19 years, Range: 19-93; 67% female; 56% Asian, 32% White). Results based on multilevel modeling with ordinal outcomes showed that individuals who, on average, reported lower meaningfulness in social interactions exhibited a greater preference for solitude versus interacting or staying with others (between-person effect). The within-person association was moderated by age, such that younger individuals showed a stronger preference for solitude on days when their social interactions felt less meaningful. These findings underscore the role of social context and age in shaping motives for seeking solitude in daily life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".