No Time for Myself: Personality Moderates Associations Between Solitude and Parental Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parental well-being is often challenged by the demanding nature of caregiving responsibilities, leaving little opportunity for solitude (i.e., time to oneself). While prior research highlights the benefits of solitude for overall well-being, less is known about how these effects vary based on personality. Solitude may be especially important for parents who are introverted, to help recharge, or high in neuroticism, to manage heightened emotional reactivity. This study aimed to investigate whether personality traits moderate the association between solitude and daily well-being (as indicated by negative affect and cortisol levels) among parents. Data are from 318 parents of underage children (Mage=40.06 years; 45% male, 81% White) in the Refresher Daily Diary subproject of the Midlife Development in the United States Survey. Over 8 days, participants reported daily opportunities for time to themselves, negative affect, and provided saliva samples on days 2–5 to measure cortisol levels. Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling. On days on which participants reported having had time to themselves, they reported lower levels of negative affect (b = -0.05, p = .001) and steeper wake-evening cortisol slopes (b = -0.07, p = .011). Individuals with higher levels of neuroticism showed stronger associations between time to themselves and negative affect (b = -0.06, p = .007) as well as cortisol slopes (b = -0.09, p = .041). Facilitating moments of solitude for parents, especially those high in neuroticism, could serve as an effective strategy for supporting their emotional and physiological health.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".