Activity Engagement and Activity-Related Experiences: The Role of Personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The associations of personality with activity participation and well-being have been well studied. However, less is known concerning the relationship between personality and specific aspects of activity engagement in older adults. We conducted a fine-grained examination of the effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on reported activity engagement-which we define as participation, time allocated, and affective experience-during 8 everyday activities. Method: Data were obtained using a day reconstruction measure from a subgroup of participants in the 2012 Health and Retirement Study (HRS: N = 5,484; mean age = 67.98 years). Results: We found mixed support for hypotheses suggesting that specific personality traits would be associated with activity participation, time allocated, and activity-affective experience. For example, extraverts were more likely to socialize and experienced higher socializing-related positive affect, but did not spend more time socializing. Discussion: Results are discussed in light of the value of including personality in, and its contribution to, studies of activity engagement in later life. In addition, the need to acknowledge the complexity of the concept of activity engagement in future research is highlighted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".