Perceived stress trajectories from age 25 to 50 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trajectories of perceived stress from the transition to adulthood (age 25), during young adulthood (age 32), and into midlife (ages 43 and 50) were examined with four waves of longitudinal survey data ( N = 688; 49% female, 37% with a university degree, 86% White). We explored how between- and within-person variation in perceived stress was associated with age 50 psychological well-being (life satisfaction and eudaimonic well-being), self-reported physical health, career satisfaction, and intimate partnership satisfaction. Growth curve analyses revealed stress followed a linear decreasing trajectory from the transition to adulthood into midlife with substantial variability underlying the average pattern. Between- and within-person variation in perceived stress was associated with midlife functioning. Those with lower initial levels of and more decline in perceived stress reported better psychological and physical health and higher relationship satisfaction at age 50 compared to those with initially higher perceived stress and less decline over time. Higher than one’s own average perceived stress at ages 25, 32, 43, and 50 years was associated with lower psychological and physical health and intimate partnership satisfaction at age 50. These results support key contentions of developmental theory and may prove useful when designing interventions aimed at promoting well-being in midlife.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".