A tale of two emotions: The diverging salience and health consequences of calmness and excitement in old age.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the benefits of positive affect in old age have been well established, little is known about the late-life salience or adaptive value of discrete positive emotions that have contrasting motivational functions. In two studies, we examined the prevalence and health consequences of individual differences in positive emotions posited to motivate a present-focused mindset that fosters rest and recovery (calmness) or a future-focused mindset that motivates pursuit of novelty and stimulation (excitement). Study 1 was based on a 1-week daily diary study (n = 146) that assessed the salience of these discrete emotions in older adults (M age = 75, SD = 6.82) relative to younger adults (M age = 23, SD = 3.91). Results from multilevel models showed that older adults experienced higher average levels of calmness and lower levels of excitement in comparison to younger adults. Study 2 was based on a 10-year study (n = 336, M age = 75, SD = 6.64) and examined the longitudinal health consequences of individual differences in calmness and excitement for older adults who perceived varying levels of control over their life circumstances. Results from multilevel growth models showed that calmness, but not excitement, buffered against longitudinal declines in psychological well-being (perceived stress, depressive symptoms) and physical health (physical symptoms, chronic conditions) for older adults experiencing low control circumstances. Findings inform theories of emotional aging in showing that positive emotions with disparate motivational functions become more or less salient with age and have diverging consequences for health in late life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".