Preserving What Matters: Longitudinal Changes in Control Over Interpersonal Stress and Noninterpersonal Stress in Daily Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Theoretical perspectives on aging suggest that when people experience declines in later life, they often selectively focus on maintaining aspects of their lives that are most meaningful and important to them. The social domain is one of these selected areas. The current study examines people's reports of control over their daily stressors over 10 years, predicting that the declines in control that are often observed in later life will not be observed for stressors involving interpersonal conflict and tensions with social partners. METHODS: Adults ranging from 35 to 86 years old at baseline (N = 1,940), from the National Study of Daily Experiences, reported control over interpersonal and noninterpersonal daily stressors across 8 consecutive days at 2 time points, about 10 years apart. RESULTS: Findings from multilevel models indicate that for noninterpersonal stressors, perceived control decreased over time. In contrast, perceived control over interpersonal conflicts and tensions remained robust over time. No cross-sectional baseline age differences were found for levels of interpersonal and noninterpersonal stressor control. DISCUSSION: Results are consistent with socioemotional selectivity and underscore the importance of interpersonal relationships in later adulthood. Understanding how people select and preserve certain aspects of control in their daily life can help guide efforts toward maximizing gains and minimizing losses in domains that matter most to people as they grow older.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".