Time‐savoring moderates associations of solitude with depressive mood, loneliness, and somatic symptoms in older adults' daily life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Episodes of solitude (being alone and without social interaction) are common in older age and can relate to decreased well-being. Identifying everyday resources that help maintain older adults' well-being in states of solitude is thus important. We investigated associations of daily solitude with subjective and physical well-being under consideration of time-savoring (i.e., attending to positive experiences and upregulating positive emotions). 108 older adults aged 65-92 years (M = 73.11, SD = 5.93; 58% women; 85% born in Switzerland) took part in an app-based daily diary study in 2022. Over 14 consecutive days, participants reported daily solitude, time-savoring, depressive mood, loneliness, and somatic symptoms in an end-of-day diary. Multilevel models revealed that participants reported higher depressive mood and loneliness, but not higher somatic symptoms on days on which they spent more time in solitude than usual. Higher-than-usual daily time-savoring was associated with lower depressive mood, loneliness, and somatic symptoms. Associations of solitude with depressive mood, loneliness, and somatic symptoms were weaker on days on which higher time-savoring than usual was reported. Findings highlight the potential of everyday time-savoring as a resource in older adults in the context of increased solitude.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".