Daily association between perceived control and resolution of daily stressors strengthens across a decade of adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greater perceived control is often associated with better responses to life's stressors. One reason for this link may be that greater perceived control is related to the ability to resolve these stressful experiences. Using longitudinal data from the National Study of Daily Experiences (N = 1766, Mage = 56.25, SD = 12.20, 57% women, 43% men), we examined associations between perceived control over daily stressors and the likelihood of stressor resolution, and how associations varied over a decade. In two waves conducted in ~2005 and ~2015, participants reported perceived control and resolution of their daily stressors across eight consecutive days. Generalized multilevel models adjusted for trends across days and waves, as well as number of stressors, gender, education, and race. People experiencing greater stressor control across the study days were more likely to report stressor resolution (OR = 1.92, 95%CI: 1.74-2.13, p < 0.001). Further, individuals were more likely to report stressor resolution on days when they reported greater control over their stressors than usual (OR = 1.66, 95%CI: 1.57-1.77, p < 0.001). This within-person association increased in magnitude across waves (OR = 1.21, 95%CI: 1.06-1.39, p < 0.01), resulting in a stronger association between stressor control and resolution when individuals were 10 years older (OR = 1.89, 95%CI: 1.69-2.12, p < 0.001). Results indicate perceived control is a psychosocial correlate of stressor resolution and an important appraisal resource for daily stress processes across the adult lifespan.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".