MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411694478 · doi:10.1037/pag0000912

Interrelations between daily stress processes and Big Five personality trait changes over 20 years.

2025· article· en· W4411694478 on OpenAlexaff
William J. Chopik, Jonathan Rush, Eric Cerino

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institutes of HealthJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityTraitBig Five personality traitsStress (linguistics)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 2,022; 55% female) each included daily measures of stressor exposure and negative affect across eight consecutive days (yielding 33,942 days of data across 18 years of adulthood). At each wave, participants reported on their personality traits (i.e., openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism). Multilevel structural equation modeling simultaneously modeled stress reactivity at Level 1; longitudinal changes in stress reactivity at Level 2; and the interrelations between changes in stress reactivity and changes in personality traits at Level 3. Higher reactivity at baseline was associated with lower levels of extraversion and conscientiousness and higher levels of neuroticism at baseline. Further, increases in reactivity across the 18-year period were associated with declines in extraversion, agreeableness, and openness. Changes in reactivity were not related to changes in neuroticism or conscientiousness. These findings clarify how changes in daily experiences are related to broader personality changes and inform integrative frameworks of personality development across the adult lifespan. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and AgingSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207