MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075397464 · doi:10.1037/a0038338

Self-esteem is relatively stable late in life: The role of resources in the health, self-regulation, and social domains.

2014· article· en· W2075397464 on OpenAlexafffund
Jenny Wagner, Christiane A. Hoppmann, Nilám Ram, Denis Gerstorf

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on AgingMax-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung
KeywordsLonelinessSelf-esteemPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studyCognitionClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large body of research has documented changes in self-esteem across adulthood and individual-difference correlates thereof. However, little is known about whether people maintain their self-esteem until the end of life and what role key risk factors in the health, cognitive, self-regulatory, and social domains play. To examine these questions, we apply growth modeling to 13-year longitudinal data obtained from by now deceased participants of the Berlin Aging Study (N = 462; age 70-103, M = 86.3 years, SD = 8.3; 51% male). Results revealed that self-esteem, on average, does decline in very old age and close to death, but the amount of typical decline is minor. Health-related constraints and disabilities as well as lower control beliefs and higher loneliness were each associated with lower self-esteem late in life. We obtained initial evidence that some of these associations were stronger among the oldest-old participants. Our results corroborate and extend initial reports that self-esteem is, on average, fairly stable into the last years of life. We discuss possible pathways by which common and often severe late-life challenges may undermine an otherwise relatively robust self-esteem system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207