Neuroticism and Stress in Older Adults: The Buffering Role of Self-Esteem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic stress is associated with accelerated aging and poor health outcomes in older adults. According to the Transactional Model of Stress (TMS), distress is experienced when one perceives the stressor, or threat, to outweigh the ability to cope. The experience of distress is correlated with trait neuroticism, which is associated with greater perceptions of stress and stress reactivity, as well as a tendency to engage in maladaptive coping strategies. However, as individual personality traits do not act in isolation, this study aimed to investigate the moderating role of self-esteem in the relationship between neuroticism and distress using a TMS framework. METHODS: A total of 201 healthy older adults (Mage = 68.65 years) completed questionnaires measuring self-esteem, neuroticism, perceived stress, and positive coping. RESULTS: = 0.06). No moderating effect was found for perceived stress or overall distress. CONCLUSION: The results support the association between trait neuroticism and indices of stress and suggest a potential buffering effect of self-esteem in moderating the negative association between neuroticism and positive coping.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".