Living status and psychological well-being: Social comparison as a moderator in later life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Older adults who live alone have been found to have lower psychological well-being than their age peers who live with someone. This study examined whether downward social comparison, i.e. perceiving oneself as better than others, would moderate this relationship. METHOD: A total of 205 Chinese aged 60 years or over were recruited. They rated themselves and 'someone their age' on a list of personal descriptions. Downward social comparison was defined as the extent to which their ratings of self were better than ratings of age peers. Life satisfaction and depression were measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the CES-D Scale, respectively. RESULTS: Participants living alone were more depressed than those living with someone; yet this difference was larger among those with lower levels than those with higher levels of downward social comparison. This interaction effect was not found for life satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that, although living alone is a risk factor for depression in old age, its negative effect can be reduced or even eliminated when downward social comparison is practised. These findings highlight the importance and effectiveness of psychological adaptation in the face of relatively more objective challenges in old age.
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 | 0.001 | 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".