Conscientiousness, Activity Engagement, and Momentary Affect in Oldest-Old Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Remaining engaged with life is a hallmark of aging well and pursuing personally meaningful activities is presumably important for late-life affect. We examined how moment-to-moment variability in meaning and degree of challenge ascribed to daily activities relate to positive and negative affect in very old adults. Possible moderating effects of between-person differences in conscientiousness on meaning-affect associations were also examined. METHODS: Participants were 73 adults aged 89 years on average from the Australian Daily Life Time-Sampling module of the Australian Longitudinal Study of Aging. Participants provided self-report data on activity engagement (meaning and challenge associated with activities) and affect, on 5 occasions per day for a period of 7 consecutive days. RESULTS: Within-person associations of activity meaning with affect varied as a function of within-person challenge ratings. Specifically, gains in positive affect associated with meaningful activity were more strongly evident when activities were regarded as more challenging. In contrast, meaningful activity was associated with higher negative affect when activities were regarded as more challenging and lower negative affect when activities were regarded as less challenging. Conscientiousness did not moderate associations of activity meaning with affect. DISCUSSION: Our findings shed light on the intricate interplay between maintaining meaningful engagement and daily emotional experiences in very old age. We discuss theoretical and practical implications and consider the role of late-life conscientiousness for self- and emotion regulation.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".