Daily Rumination Among Older Men and Women: The Role of Perceived Family and Nonfamily Social Partner Life Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Women tend to ruminate more than men, and are generally more hypervigilant to the emotions of others in order to maintain positive social ties. Thus, compared to men, women may ruminate more when their social partners have greater life stresses. However, the literature on stressful events typically focuses on individuals' experiences and perceptions of stressors experienced by specific social ties such as spousal partners and adult children. The purpose of this study was to examine links between perceptions of a broad array of family and nonfamily social partner stresses and daily rumination among older men and women. METHODS: Adults aged 65 and older (N = 293, 55% women) completed baseline assessments of family and nonfamily life stressors and 5-6 consecutive nightly assessments regarding rumination, interpersonal tensions, worries, and support provision. RESULTS: Multilevel structural equation models revealed that perceptions of greater family and nonfamily life stressors were associated with greater rumination. The links between family stress and rumination varied by gender: family stress was related to greater rumination among women and not men. Moreover, among women, family and nonfamily stress-rumination links were accounted for by greater daily worries about others, and among men, the nonfamily stress-rumination link was due to greater interpersonal tensions as well as daily worries. DISCUSSION: These findings may be due in part to gender role socialization and women's greater kin-keeping and investment in family ties.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".