Finding the middle ground: Curvilinear associations between positive affect variability and daily cortisol profiles.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that there are stable and meaningful individual differences in how much people vary in their experience of positive affect (PA), which in turn may have implications for health and well-being. Does such PA variability play a role in physiological processes potentially related to stress and health, such as daily cortisol profiles? We explored this question by examining whether PA variability across and within days in middle-aged adults (Study 1) and across weeks in older adults (Study 2) was associated with daily salivary cortisol profiles. In both studies, individuals who exhibited moderate PA variability demonstrated more favorable cortisol profiles, such as lower levels of cortisol and steeper slopes. Interestingly, for middle-aged adults (Study 1), high levels of within-day PA variability were associated with the least favorable cortisol profiles, whereas for older adults (Study 2), low levels of across-week PA variability were associated with the least favorable cortisol profiles. Collectively, these findings provide some of the first evidence that PA variability is related to daily cortisol profiles, suggesting that it may be better to experience a moderate degree of positive affect variability. Too much or too little variability, however, may be problematic, potentially carrying negative implications for stress-related physiological responding.
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".