Positive affect during adolescence and health and well-being in adulthood: An outcome-wide longitudinal approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several intergovernmental organizations, including the World Health Organization and United Nations, are urging countries to use well-being indicators for policymaking. This trend, coupled with increasing recognition that positive affect is beneficial for health/well-being, opens new avenues for intervening on positive affect to improve outcomes. However, it remains unclear if positive affect in adolescence shapes health/well-being in adulthood. We examined if increases in positive affect during adolescence were associated with better health/well-being in adulthood across 41 outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study using data from Add Health-a prospective and nationally representative cohort of community-dwelling U.S. adolescents. Using regression models, we evaluated if increases in positive affect over 1 year (between Wave I; 1994 to 1995 and Wave II; 1995 to 1996) were associated with better health/well-being 11.37 years later (in Wave IV; 2008; N = 11,040) or 20.64 years later (in Wave V; 2016 to 2018; N = 9,003). Participants were aged 15.28 years at study onset, and aged 28.17 or 37.20 years-during the final assessment. Participants with the highest (versus lowest) positive affect had better outcomes on 3 (of 13) physical health outcomes (e.g., higher cognition (β = 0·12, 95% CI = 0·05, 0·19, p = 0.002)), 3 (of 9) health behavior outcomes (e.g., lower physical inactivity (RR = 0·80, CI = 0·66, 0·98, p = 0.029)), 6 (of 7) mental health outcomes (e.g., lower anxiety (RR = 0·81, CI = 0·71, 0·93, p = 0.003)), 2 (of 3) psychological well-being (e.g., higher optimism (β = 0·20, 95% CI = 0·12, 0·28, p < 0.001)), 4 (of 7) social outcomes (e.g., lower loneliness (β = -0·09, 95% CI = -0·16, -0·02, p = 0.015)), and 1 (of 2) civic/prosocial outcomes (e.g., more voting (RR = 1·25, 95% CI = 1·16, 1·36, p < 0.001)). Study limitations include potential unmeasured confounding and reverse causality. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced positive affect during adolescence is linked with a range of improved health/well-being outcomes in adulthood. These findings suggest the promise of testing scalable positive affect interventions and policies to more definitively assess their impact on outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".