Mindful vs. mind full: Processing strategies moderate the association between subjective aging experiences and depressive symptoms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that the longitudinal association between subjective aging experiences, that is, the way people perceive and evaluate their aging process, and well-being-related developmental outcomes depends on individual differences. We investigated the moderating role of two processing strategies, that is, mindfulness and negative repetitive thought (RT), for the association between subjective aging experiences and depressive symptoms in middle and old adulthood. Analyses were based on two measurements covering a 4.5-year interval (Time 1: 2012, N = 423; age range = 40-98 years; Time 2: 2017, N = 299; age range = 44-92 years). Subjective aging experiences were operationalized as awareness of age-related gains and losses. Data were analyzed by means of a latent change score model based on a structural equation modeling approach. Mindfulness buffered the harmful effect of high levels of awareness of age-related losses on change in depressive symptoms. Conversely, negative RT exacerbated the detrimental effect of high levels of awareness of age-related losses and low levels of awareness of age-related gains on change in depressive symptoms. With regard to the interplay between awareness of age-related gains and mindfulness, effects were less robust, although the direction of findings was consistent with theoretical considerations. Effects were comparable across middle-aged and older adults. Subjective aging experiences are not operating in isolation, but always need to be considered in the context of the way individuals are cognitively dealing with them. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".