Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41190299›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025

Social withdrawal subtypes and psychological well-being in Chinese emerging and early adults: unsociability as a protective factor and age-differentiated effects in a new media social environment.

Tomoko Kishimoto, Tianyu Wang, Qiyu Bai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tomoko KishimotoFaculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Tianyu WangDepartment of Social Psychology, Nankai University, Tianjin, China.
Qiyu BaiSchool of New Media, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In the digital age, social withdrawal as a stable personality trait has become increasingly complex, as individuals may engage in face-to-face withdrawal while maintaining digital social connections through new media platforms. Well-established withdrawal subtypes have been studied in Western cultures, but their implications in Chinese digital social contexts remain underexplored. Methods: This cross-sectional study examined the associations between different social withdrawal subtypes and psychological well-being indices among Chinese emerging and early adults, with consideration of the contemporary digital social landscape. Participants (n = 1365, M_age = 27.79) completed an online survey including the Social Preference Scale for Adult-Chinese Revised (SPSA-CR), measures of psychological well-being, and relationship satisfaction. Results: Results showed that each social withdrawal subtype was differentially associated with psychological well-being indices: shyness was significantly associated with internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and relationship satisfaction; avoidance was significantly associated with internalizing problems and relationship satisfaction; unsociability was significantly associated with aggression and relationship satisfaction. Age moderated the associations between shyness and psychological well-being indices, though effect sizes were small (β = -0.072 to 0.133). Discussion: These cross-sectional findings suggest differential associations between withdrawal subtypes and well-being in Chinese cultural contexts.

Indexed as

age moderationemerging and early adulthoodpsychological well-beingsocial withdrawalunsociability

Identifiers

PMID41190299
PMCPMC12580279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.