IN THE SHADOW OF THE GREAT RECESSION: THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RECESSION EXPERIENCES AND DAILY INDICES OF WELL-BEING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study examined the associations of positive and negative experiences during the Great Recession (GR) with levels of daily well-being. In 2012, participants from the Midlife in the United States Refresher survey reported on their positive or negative GR experiences related to job, housing, or finances. A subsample, selected into the National Study of Daily Experiences (N=782), also reported on their daily levels of health and well-being across eight consecutive days and provided saliva samples, from which cortisol was assayed. The number of negative GR experiences reported related to poorer daily well-being (negative and positive affect, physical symptoms, stress severity, and cortisol daily peak-to-nadir ratio), whereas, the number of positive GR experiences was only related to lower severity of daily stressors (β=–0.03, p=.03). Examining specific GR experiences revealed that individuals who reported bad housing experience during the GR reported higher daily levels of negative affect (β=0.14, p<.001), physical symptoms (β=0.90, p<.001), and frequency of stressor days (β=0.01, p<.001), and lower daily levels of positive affect (β=–0.19, p=.02). Bad financial experience was related to more physical symptoms (β=0.62, p<.001) and greater severity of daily stressors (β=0.14, p=.03). Conversely, positive financial experiences were related to greater cortisol daily peak-to-nadir ratio (β=1.98, p=.03), but also greater frequency of stressor days (β=0.05, p=.01). Results highlight the potential influence of major economic strains on our ongoing daily experiences. This work has implications for policy and interventions around supporting midlife and older adults facing economic strains, in order to improve daily well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".