Nightly Sleep Predicts Next-Morning Expectations for Stress and Positive Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Abundant research has linked nightly sleep as an antecedent of daily psychosocial experiences; however, less is known about sleep's influence on daily expectations of these experiences. Therefore, this research examined the day-to-day associations of sleep quality, duration, and efficiency with next-day expectations for stress(ors) and positive experiences, as well as whether these expectations were related to end-of-day reports of physical symptoms. METHODS: In Study 1, U.S. adults ( n = 354; ages 19 to 74) completed twice-daily diaries for 10 weekdays about sleep, expectations for encountering daily stressors and positive events, and physical symptoms. In Study 2, adults in Canada ( n = 246; ages 25 to 87) wore a sleep watch for 14 consecutive days and completed mobile surveys 5×/day about sleep, stressfulness and pleasantness expectations, and physical symptoms. RESULTS: Multilevel models indicated that self-reported sleep quality and duration, but not efficiency, were associated with lower next-day expectations for stressors (Study 1) and stressfulness (Study 2). Self-reported sleep quality (Study 1) and all sleep indices (Study 2) predicted greater next-day expectations for positive events and pleasantness, respectively. For actigraphy-assessed sleep (Study 2), only longer-than-usual actigraphic sleep duration was associated with lower stressfulness expectations, whereas both sleep duration and efficiency were positively linked with daily pleasantness expectations. Only pleasantness expectations (Study 2)-but not daily stressfulness and event expectations (Study 1)-predicted end-of-day physical symptoms. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest the importance of sleep on expectations of next-day stress and positive experiences, of which may have implications for daily physical health.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".