Life satisfaction moderates the impact of daily stressors on well-being and health.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Higher life satisfaction is associated with reduced risk of age-related morbidities and premature mortality. However, the degree to which life satisfaction moderates the physical and mental health-related outcomes of daily stressors remains understudied. In this study, we evaluated whether higher life satisfaction moderated the association between the experience of daily stressors and reports of positive affect, negative affect, and physical symptoms. METHOD: = 2,022; conducted 2004-2009). Participants reported their life satisfaction and daily diary entries on stress, positive/negative affect, and physical symptoms. We used multilevel modeling to assess whether life satisfaction moderated stress-related variations in affect and physical symptoms when participants reported a particularly high number of stressors. RESULTS: Higher life satisfaction was associated with lower negative affect and fewer physical symptoms among participants who reported more frequent stressors (i.e., between-subjects). We did not observe associations with positive affect. Life satisfaction also moderated the impact of stressors within individuals, such that people reported higher negative affect and physical symptoms on days with more stressors but this association was reduced among those higher in life satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study advance our understanding of how life satisfaction might confer benefits for mental and physical health, primarily through moderating the effect of stress on poorer outcomes. We discuss the findings in the context of the mechanisms linking psychological well-being to physical health in the context of stress across the 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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".