Healthy Neuroticism, Daily Physical Activity, and Daily Stress in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People are typically less physically active when experiencing stress, an unavoidable aspect of life. Since physical activity has been associated with health benefits, it is important to understand what influences physical activity during stress. Research has demonstrated that individuals who are high in conscientiousness are more physically active; however, studies that have examined physical activity among people high in neuroticism have yielded mixed findings. Healthy neuroticism, a term used to describe individuals high in conscientiousness and neuroticism, may explain these mixed results. While individuals low in conscientiousness and high in neuroticism may become overwhelmed, stress may motivate people high in healthy neuroticism to be physically active as an investment in their future. We assessed older adults’ (N = 60; Mage = 70.72; 76.70% cisgender women) personality at baseline as well as daily physical activity and daily stress over 14 days. Regression analyses investigated whether daily stress predicted daily physical activity and whether healthy neuroticism moderated the physical activity-stress association. Ultimately, this study found that daily stress did not predict daily physical activity; as stress increased, individuals higher in conscientiousness were less physically active, while individuals lower in conscientiousness were more active. These findings were inconsistent with our predictions and previous research. Consequently, we propose future research directions and potential explanations for these unforeseen findings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".