Predictors and consequences of loneliness in older adults and the power of positive emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social isolation and loneliness are problems that affect the quality of life of many older adults. As the proportion of older people increases in Canada and other nations, studying factors that could improve the quality of life of older people becomes even more crucial. Two studies were conducted drawing on longitudinal data (1996 and 2001) from the Aging in Manitoba Project (Study 1 N = 760) and the Successful Aging Study 2003 (Study 2 N = 228). The main objective of Study 1 was to identify the characteristics of older individuals who differed in their loneliness trajectories over time, allowing for a comparison of those who became lonely, overcame loneliness, were persistently lonely, and were persistently not lonely. A discriminant function analysis examined the social, demographic, physical, and psychological factors as potential discriminators of the loneliness trajectories. When compared to those who were neither lonely at time 1 or time 2, the most important discriminators of persistent loneliness were: living alone, being in poor health, and having low perceptions of control. These predictors were found to be more important than people’s friendships or social activities, highlighting the complexity of loneliness in later life. Study 2 examined the longitudinal relationships between loneliness, health, physical activity, and mortality, and tested Fredrickson’s Broaden and Build Theory that positive emotions (happiness) might serve to “undo” the detrimental effects of negative emotions like loneliness. Regression analyses showed that loneliness longitudinally predicted health, physical activity, and mortality, underscoring the importance of socioemotional variables to health. Moreover, happiness moderated the relationships between loneliness and physical activity and loneliness and mortality. Thus, in support of Fredrickson’s hypothesis, results suggested that happiness has the power to “undo” the detrimental effects of loneliness on physical activity and even on mortality. Being happy may indeed offset the negative consequences of being lonely. Based on these two studies, it was concluded that future interventions could target positive emotions, perceptions of control, and loneliness as ways of ultimately enhancing the lifespan, healthspan, and wellspan of older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".