Do You Know When You Will Retire? Exploring Relationships Between Personality Traits, Retirement Expectations, and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored the retirement process and examined the relationships between retirement expectations, personality traits, and psychological well-being. The study used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth – 1979 Cohort (NLSY79). From 2014 to 2020, participants reported the likelihood of working full-time at age 62 and age 65. Compared to people who expected to work full-time at age 62, people who expected to retire had a more negative personality profile (higher neuroticism, lower extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness). These differences were smaller at age 65, but they showed a similar pattern. Changes in expectations over time related to both personality traits and psychological well-being. Specifically, if people increased their likelihood of working full-time after age 62, it was correlated with positive personality traits (e.g., lower neuroticism); likewise, increased likelihood of working full-time after age 62 and 65 was related to better psychological well-being (e.g., higher life satisfaction).
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".