Regret in Later Life: Exploring Relationships between Regret Frequency, Secondary Interpretive Control Beliefs, and Health in Older Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined what older people regret, and the relationships between regret, health and life satisfaction. The study also explored the role of secondary interpretive control beliefs in relation to regret. Participants (N= 228; 79-98 years old) were asked to report on the content and frequency of their regret, secondary interpretive control beliefs (e.g., beliefs in finding the "silver lining" in a dark cloud), health, and life satisfaction. A content analysis revealed that participants most commonly reported feeling regret due to things they had not done, the death of a loved one, and their own or others' health problems. Regression analyses indicated that experiencing regret more frequently was associated with poorer health and life satisfaction. Moreover, evidence for an emotion-modifying role of secondary interpretive control beliefs was shown through its negative association with regret. Results suggest that older adults may be experiencing age-related regrets that differ in content from those experienced at younger ages and that certain control beliefs may serve to lessen regret.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".