How your executive functioning impacts me: Findings from a normative sample of older couples.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although executive functioning (EF) has implications for one's emotional functioning and interpersonal behavior, and EF skills become more variable as we age, little research has investigated whether normative age-related changes in EF impact social-emotional outcomes in close others. The current study used a dyadic approach to examine the impact of individual differences in core aspects of EF on indices of well-being in 91 married or cohabiting couples aged 55 years and older. Participants in each dyad completed EF tasks of inhibition, working memory, and task switching, control tasks of language and short-term memory (STM) in which EF demands were comparatively minimal, and self-report measures of depression and quality of life. Dyadic analyses showed that individuals with lower levels of EF self-reported more depressive symptoms, though there was no significant association between an individual's EF and their partner's self-reported mood. Conversely, individuals with lower levels of EF had partners who endorsed a lower quality of life, though there was no significant association between an individual's EF and their own quality of life ratings. Control tasks did not predict either aspect of well-being in either member of the dyad. Taken together, these findings highlight EF-and not simply cognition in general-as a potential determinant of well-being in oneself and one's partner among aging couples.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".