WHEN I AM 64 WILL I BE HAPPY? II

When I am 64 will I be happy? (Part 2)

BLOGGER:  PAUL GRIFFIN, PHD

Does happiness change with age? Although the difficulties of the aging process coupled with negative stereotypes about the elderly lead many to think that a decline in happiness is inevitable, in my first post I argued that some research contradicts this popular belief. A number of studies find that those who are 64 are more likely to report higher levels of happiness than those who are 34 or 44. These findings are revealing, and certainly they point to reasons why we should be somewhat optimistic about our “golden years.” But in this post I would like to add a note of caution. Although some have used these compelling findings to definitively conclude that happiness increases with age, I think this general conclusion is problematic for two primary reasons. After discussing these problems, I will try to keep the reader happy—especially the baby boomers–by nonetheless arguing that there are still considerable reasons to be optimistic about getting older, even if the future of aging presents a number of pressing issues for society as a whole.

The first problem with concluding that happiness increases with age is that findings on this subject vary according to how happiness is measured. This brings us to an issue that has perplexed greater thinkers throughout the ages: What is happiness? On the surface, this is a rather basic question that could be answered by most anyone. We have all experienced happiness, and, therefore, we all believe we know what it is. Yet because happiness is a subjective experience, a standard definition remains elusive. We all come to our own definitions of what happiness is, and subsequently use this definition to answer the question, Am I happy? Therefore, even with the understanding that people can be wrong about their own emotional states, most research on happiness is based on directly asking the people being studied to provide the answers themselves. The most basic way of doing this would be by asking a single global question like the following: “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days—would you say very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy.”

Some—particularly in psychology– approach the question of happiness a little deeper by more precisely trying to define the components of happiness. Since they often still take a subjective approach to answering the question, the term that is often used interchangeably with happiness is “subjective well-being” (SWB). Fancy terms for common words are often a part of academic disciplines, and it might be true that in many cases such substitutions are a way for people with PhDs to feel a wee bit smarter (and, thus, a bit happier). In this case, however, I think the use of the term SWB is way to arrive at a more precise definition of happiness. The three broad components that make up people who are high in SWB are characteristics typically associated with happiness: high life satisfaction, high positive affect (more likely to experience positive emotional states), and low negative affect (less likely to experience negative emotional states). Reliable multiple-item questionnaires have been created for all three components and used in hundreds of studies.

Now what is interesting is that when you take a close look at the research on aging and happiness, you find certain differences depending on how and what component of happiness/SWB is being measured. For instance, the single item question described above (“Taken all together..”) has been used in a number of large studies comparing thousands of people of different ages. Some research of this types indicates that happiness is high in people in young adulthood—in their 20s—and then shows a decline until one reaches their late 40s to early 50s, whereupon we once again see increases. Other research, using components of SWB, finds other results. For instance, considerable amount of research on life satisfaction does not often show the early dip in middle-age, but rather a gradual rise from individuals in their 30s to the early 70s. Also, research on negative affect often indicates significant declines in the experience of negative emotions as we move from young to older adulthood, but the research on positive affect is less conclusive, with some research indicating no change with age, other findings pointing to small increases, and yet other research finding gradual declines. Please note that even when these mixed results are considered, it still does not suggest that happiness is highest in young adulthood.

I will try to make sense of these discrepancies in a moment. But let’s take up the second problem, which is that a considerable amount of the age and happiness research is composed of populations that often do not include many people in their 80s and beyond. Not including such age groups might have made sense several decades ago, when they made up smaller amounts of the elderly population. But that is not the case today, and it is likely that “late life” for increasing number of people in the future will not mean late 60s or 70s, but the decades beyond. Therefore, this is an important population to consider, and when we begin to expand our research pool to include these age groups, the picture of happiness and aging becomes more complicated. For instance, while SWB research comparing samples of people in young adulthood and middle-age (30 to 50) to older adulthood (60 and 70s) often indicate higher SWB in the older populations, when we look at groups beyond their 70s, declines are more pronounced. My own longitudinal research with a sample of 1500 men found that while negative affect showed a significant decline between middle to older adulthood (from 40 to 70 years), these declines began to flatten when they reached their early 70s, and then the experience of negative emotions showed a gradual increase as men moved into their 80s. Therefore, while it is true that a number of studies do find increases in happiness with old age, many of these studies fail to define “old age” with individuals beyond their late 70s. Studies that do focus on the very old (>80) often find reductions in SWB with age.

What are we to make of all of these discrepancies? First, it seems that if we want to get a more defined picture of how happiness changes across the lifespan, we need to fully consider what aspects of happiness are being measured. When we consider the different components of SWB and how they show different changes across the lifespan, rather than think of these findings as inconsistencies we might instead want to consider how they reveal the different ways that aspects of the happy life manifest themselves across the lifespan. A more complete picture of happiness requires us to move away from a global and singular answer to this question. Different changes in different indicators of SWB might point to the varied ways we adjust to the aging process.

Second, recent research that finds declines in happiness in very late life make it clear that we should be careful about coming to any general conclusions about the direction of SWB across the lifespan. Although it is now more common to find headlines—in both academic and popular outlets—claiming that happiness is highest in later life, I think this optimistic picture of aging is incomplete. Yes, there is considerable amount of research that indicates that people are quite happy at 64, but we know considerably less about this question when we ask those who are 84. And while 64 years of age might have once produced the iconic image of the later years of life in a song written several decades ago, this picture of late life has shifted and thus must our conceptions of what it means to get old. Recent research indicating declines in happiness in the very old (>80 years) should be reason for concern. They probably point to the many stressors of the aging process as increasing difficulties accumulate.

Yet before you say I don’t want to be 80, consider a couple of points. Several longitudinal studies on SWB find a significant degree of variability in how people change across the lifespan, even in these later years. This is another way of saying that while a considerable number of people might show decreases in happiness in very late adulthood, a considerable number do not. Yes, people are still flourishing, even in their 80s and 90s. Why? What predicts differences in the ways we cope with the aging process? This is an essential question that I will address in a future post. The important point to consider now is that there is no reason to believe that such declines are inevitable. This leads me to my next point, which is that not so long ago our perceptions of aging and what was to be expected of those in later life were considerably different from today. Ageism and common negative stereotypes of the elderly remain, but consider the more sedentary lives of those in their 60s and 70s a half century ago, and compare that with the active lifestyle many in this same age group are practicing today. This profound cultural shift can be attributed to a variety of factors, including greater amounts of social capital, better health, and expanded life expectancies.

One of the most influential researchers in gerontology and positive aging, Paul Baltes, once wrote, “The greatest invention of the 20^th century is old age.” In saying this, Baltes was saying how none of the changes we described were inevitable. If people live longer and in some cases better at later ages, it is because of the significant contributions made by society to cause these changes. But Baltes’ comment also points to the tremendous strain that such an invention places on society and individuals. If getting older is to continue to mean getting better for a significant portion of the population, it will also require considerable effort and sacrifice. When you consider that whatever the age of the person reading this post, it is now more likely than ever before in human history that he or she will spend more years at advanced ages of life, such commitment and sacrifice will be an essential part of ensuring a happy populace now and in the future.

To find out more about Dr. Griffin, click his photo below.  All links for Dr. Griffin will be listed below his bio.

To receive ImagineAge Updates as new blogs are posted, enter your email in the “subscribe” box in the upper left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!!!

If you enjoyed this blog, click the share button below!

For constant site updates, make sure to subscribe to our RSS feed!

WHEN I AM 64 WILL I BE HAPPY?

When I am 64 will I be happy? (Part 1)

BLOGGER:  PAUL GRIFFIN, PHD

In 1967, one of the first major reviews of happiness appeared in the psychological literature. It might seem hard to imagine now with new books on happiness popping up every month or so, but at that time happiness was of relatively little academic concern within psychology. Therefore, this article by a psychologist named Warner Wilson was quite valuable because it attempted to review and synthesize all of the studies on happiness up to that point and draw some conclusions based on this research. Among such conclusions was one that still seems persuasive to many: when it comes to happiness, better to be young.

Each year I teach an undergraduate class on the psychology of happiness. With the exception of a student or two, most of these students are in their late teens to early 20s. When I ask them to hypothetically compare the happiness levels of 20 and 30 year olds with those who are in their 60s and 70s, usually more than 60% pick the younger group (I suspect the numbers would be even be larger if it weren’t for the fact that by asking the question I am priming them to go against their instinct). Perhaps unless you are over 50 it is hard to think that being older means being happier. Why should it? After all, doesn’t getting older mean getting worse? Yes, it is true that the advent of modern medicine along with the rise of gerontology and education about aging has led to some shift in the way we think of older adulthood. However, while today’s 60 was yesterday’s 50, it doesn’t mean that common negative stereotypes of aging still do not persist. As one student asked, what is so great about losing cognitive skills, physical mobility, freedom, and social stature? Or as another student more bluntly put it, “not getting it up” can hardly make for a happy life.

Young adults’ mistaken perceptions of what awaits them in the coming years might lead to false conclusions about happiness in later life, but I think that there is more to it than that. In fact, while often grossly overstated by some, the aging process does involve decline in a number of areas, including certain cognitive skills and especially in a variety of physical abilities. And although there is a certain level of esteem and respect that is garnered as one ages (and, one hopes, progresses), our society still places great value on youth and the associated beauty, vigor, and excitement that comes with it. Regardless of the myths, in many respects, getting older can be hard. The often intuitive belief that being young means being happier makes perfect sense to me.

Let me reiterate, though, that Wilson’s early conclusion about happiness and aging were not based on intuition. This argument was based the existing research at the time. So this would be a pretty depressing post if I told you that this was the end of the story, that four decades later we have come to the scientific conclusion that it sucks to be old. In fact, something interesting happened—well, interesting enough, that I went on to do my doctoral dissertation on the subject (which according to some friends, hardly makes it interesting). After Wilson’s review, gradually more studies began to be conducted on the subject. The reason for this was twofold: greater attention to issues surrounding the aging process and more study devoted by psychologists, as well as related fields, to the question of happiness itself (I will have more to say about that in a later post). And not just more research, but better research. With each ensuing decade, the instruments being used were more precise and the populations being studied were larger and more diverse.

So now the interesting part. Through the 1970s and early 1980, a number of different studies did not find evidence that the young were happy than the old. In fact, by 1984 in the second major review of the literature, Ed Diener—one of the most prominent researchers in the area of happiness—had to amend Wilson’s original conclusion about age and happiness. At this point the research indicated there was no significant relationship between the two variables. In other words, age played little role in predicting happiness. Although there were certainly differences across individuals, there didn’t seem to be enough evidence to suggest that happiness varied in any predictable ways across age groups. If that still isn’t interesting enough for you, it gets better. After this review by Diener, there continued to be a significant amount of research on the question of happiness and aging. Again, this was due to the continued interest in gerontological issues and in an explosion of research on predictors of happiness. What began to emerge was a picture that surprised by many. So much so, that it was even identified as a “paradox.” Why a paradox? Because not only did it contradict Wilson’s earlier assertions, it went against the intuitive belief I spoke about before, the idea that aging and its associated rigors should lead to greater levels of unhappiness. These newer research suggested the exact opposite: there, indeed, was a relationship between age and happiness, and that relationship was positive. Getting older meant getting happier.

Let me give you one example of a study that changed the tide. In 1998, a young researcher named Dan Mroczek (along with his student Chris Kolarz) published research from a national database known as the MIDUS study. There had already been research suggesting that older people might be happier than the young, but perhaps due to the large sample size (over 2,500 people) and the sophisticated level of analysis, this study received considerable national attention. These researchers found that when comparing a group that ranged from their mid 20s to mid 70s, general levels of positive emotions increased across age groups while negative affect declined. Soon after they published their results, these findings appeared in a host of news outlets (it even provided material for Jay Leno’s opening monologue on the Tonight Show). In many respects, this study seemed to be the perfect conclusion to a decade of research on “positive aging.” For some time a number of researchers had been focused on the issue of understanding emotional changes across the lifespan, and Mrozcek’s study seemed to confirm many of their own positive conclusions about emotional well-being in late life.

So there you have it: when you are 64 you will be happy. Well, not exactly. Of course, no one study can ever then be used to predict an individual’s life. I hope to say more about individual differences—and factors related to such differences—at a later date. But let’s return to the general question of age differences and happiness. Does research substantiate the claim that aging more often leads to a rise in levels of happiness? A decade since Mroczek’s findings, there have been a number of studies that seem to confirm their results. At least when it comes to emotional well-being, these findings paint an optimistic picture of later life. Although it might be hard for someone younger than middle-age to imagine it might be so, a considerable amount of research suggests that happiness is not the provenance of the young.

Of course, some of you might not be surprised by this. In some cases, it might be because you are young and you are thinking, well it has to get better than this. Or maybe you are currently in middle-age or older and can tell me first-hand about this effect (as many of my older graduates have done). Or perhaps, even, you have read about these findings somewhere. Every several years you will find news outlets reporting the “surprising” finding that older individuals are happy! (The fact that this relatively old news is still newsworthy tells us how hard it is for us to believe it is true.) More than ever before—most especially in academic circles—there is an optimistic picture of life in later adulthood. In fact, it is not uncommon to hear the assertion that you get happier as you get older.

Now here is the part where I say that everything I have told you thus far is wrong, and you get annoyed. Well, not exactly. In fact, I do believe that there is considerable evidence to suggest that for many, happiness does increase across the lifespan. I certainly convinced that the notion that you are happiest in young adulthood is false. However, it seems to me that research over the last few years indicates that we might have painted an overly optimistic picture of such changes. In recent years researchers have sought to dissuade many from the stereotypical belief of the cantankerous old man as emblematic of the elderly population, and then replace him with the glossed over picture of a man swimming laps in the pool. There is good reason for this, and I find nothing wrong with our attempt to shift negative perceptions of aging. But what is missing is a more nuanced picture of an expanding cohort of elderly individuals. Although the media loves a happy ending, in my next post I would to discuss why we might needs to shift some of these assumptions about happiness once again. It might be true that you are likely to be happy when you are 64 and 74, but things seem more complicated when we start looking beyond to an elderly population that represents the fastest growing age cohort in the U.S.

For more information about Dr. Griffin, click his photo below:

If you’d like to receive ImagineAge Updates as new blogs are posted, enter your email address in the “subscribe” box on the upper left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!

To become a Fan of ImagineAge on Facebook, click here!

To join the ImagineAge Group on Facebook, click here!

For constant site updates, make sure to subscribe to our RSS feed!

ABUSE AND AGISM IN THE WORKPLACE

ABUSE AND AGISM IN THE WORKPLACE

BLOGGER: MEBANE POWELL, MSW

When you hear the term abuse, what pops into your mind?  I bet that if I could talk to you directly, you would most likely think of abuse as something that occurs at home between partners, against children and against the elderly.  Similarly, if I were to ask you do we live in an ageist society, I would wager that most of you would say yes.  However, I would wager that few of you reading this thought about abuse and ageism as occurring in the workplace.  I recently participated on a panel at the United Nations NonGovernmental Organization Committee on Aging meeting and I’d like to share some of my speaking points.

It is well recognized that the aging population is facing enormous challenges in the workplace, during economic times that some would call a perfect storm for ageism and abuse in the workplace.  In his book The Longevity Revolution: The Benefits and Challenges of Living a Long Life, Dr. Robert N. Butler notes that “Ageism is a form of systemic stereotyping and discrimination against people simply because they are old” (p.40).   However, mistreatment of older people is often not recognized as abuse when it occurs in the workplace.

The Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing does address the rights of older people to serve as productive citizens and have their skills and abilities recognized and appreciated in both paid and civic engagement long after they turn 60 years of age. I urge everyone who is reading this to think of the issue around ageism and abuse in the workplace as a human rights issue.   

I am often reminded of a quote regarding who and/or what determines which social problems should be addressed by policy; the quote is as follows: “Social ethics and political forces are intimately tied together, especially in terms of WHICH social problems to address, HOW to address them, and weather or not the disproportionate risk certain groups face is of paramount concern in the world of program implementation and practice” [Social Policy Analysis and Practice – Meenaghan, Kilty, Mcnutt]. 

Fortunately, the formation of policy to address the issue of bullying in the workplace as a social problem is occurring, and gaining strength.  However, we (professionals, practitioners, advocates, and students) all have a responsibility to be aware of the need for the creation of policy that includes workplace education, organizational behavior, and the interplay between the individual and the organizational environment. 

Research into the issue is needed in order to support and provide evidence for policy advocates.  As I’ve told my students, research can be likened to creating a great symphony.  Each section is in charge of carrying out their piece of music, each section supports the others, and each section has a chance to take the lead.  In other words, research should not happen in a vacuum, all professions should work with each other, psychologists, social workers, economist, and public health professionals, must all play their part. 

That being said, we are at a time where the coming together of professions is of utmost importance in order to answer the question: “What are the next logical and most productive steps research can take to provide outcomes and input into policy implementation and practice?”

In a presentation about psychological abuse in the workplace by Dr. Shah, two key points were raised.  First, a legal definition of bullying would help employers develop policies – rules and regulations alone will not solve the problem.  Second, In order to provide an effective strategy for combating ageism and abuse, we must also include education, conflict resolution mechanisms, and a commitment from employers that is based on good business practice.

However, there are also other issues to consider in terms of future research and policy formation that I would like to share with you, they are:

o   The need for a clear and concise definition of abuse in the workplace in order for researchers and organizations to address the issue and to be able to measure the impact of policy implementation and outcomes (Does the implementation of a policy decrease the abuse?).

o   What types of abuse are occurring in the workplace and how are workers defining abuse in the workplace?  Is there consistency in the definition across industries?  More importantly, how do we begin to measure ageism and abuse in the workplace? 

o   In terms of organizations, are there certain organizational structures that promote or prevent abuse and ageism from occurring? Or is it the culture of the organization that plays a larger role and is the key to prevention and/or promotion of abuse and ageism? 

o   Have prior discrimination policies been evaluated regarding the ability to implement policies within organizations?  What were the challenges to implementing these policies and how can we use this information to increase the success of implementing policies regarding ageism and abuse in the workplace?

In conclusion, I want to remind everyone when investigating the issue around ageism and abuse in the workplace, to use the international human rights frame to guide us in future policy, practice, and research.   Thank you! 

What are your thoughts?

Mebane E. Powell is a doctoral student at Fordham University, Graduate School of Social Service.  She has a Masters Degree in Social Work with a concentration in Research from Fordham University and a BA in Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.  Ms. Powell has worked in the field of psychosocial research since 2000, focusing on elder abuse as well as vision loss in the aging population. 

To receive ImagineAge updates, enter your email in the “subscribe” box on the upper left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!  

For constant site updates, make sure to subscribe to our RSS feed!

The Future of Advertising and Marketing Research

The Future of Advertising and Marketing Research

 BLOGGER:  ROBERT F. BORNSTEIN, PHD

Will research as we know it really be dead (or at best on life support) by 2012?  Many of us are familiar with Kim Dedeker’s now-famous quote, but it’s hard to envision how such a massive paradigm shift could occur so quickly, or what form it might take.

Most marketing experts see the future in terms of a movement toward more ecologically valid measures of marketing impact–measures that reflect how people really behave.  We’re talking about real-time readings of online chatter, twitters, and so forth….that sort of thing.  Clearly we’re moving away from the traditional questionnaires, surveys and focus groups.  The flaws in these methods are too glaring to ignore.

But let’s look below the surface and see what’s behind this shift.  The limitations of traditional marketing research methods are clear: They provide an incomplete picture of people’s true attitudes, and a biased one as well.  Many people respond to questionnaires as they think they’re supposed to answer (not saying how they really feel).  Even worse, people–all of us–have only partial and limited access to our underlying, unconscious attitudes and preferences.  Psychologists have known this for years: Study after study shows that verbal self reports are stunningly poor predictors of behavior.

So how do we shift from research to insight–from mindless data-crunching to thoughtful analysis?

Moving beyond questionnaires will help, but even ecologically based measures (like chat tracking) rely on self-report–what people say, not how they really feel.  We need different data.  Better data.  More direct measures of underlying attitudes and preferences.

I’m not talking about neuroimaging here…fMRIs are (in the words of one neuroscientist widely published in this area) still too primitive–more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel.  It will be years until EEGs and neuroscans are sensitive enough to provide the kinds of answers we need.

To get beneath the surface, beyond self-report to implicit data that taps people’s unconscious reactions and reflexive gut-level responses, we need to lean more heavily on cutting-edge work in cognitive science and neuroscience.

Consider:

Mere repeated exposure to a product or image increases people’s positive reactions to that product–a phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect.  There have been more than 300 published studies of the exposure effect, and here’s the kicker: When product images are presented subliminally (so people are not aware they’ve seen them) the exposure effect is far stronger than when the image is consciously perceived.  And the positive attitudes “spill over” to other, related images.

Can you get subliminal mere exposure effects in the real world?  In the words of a former Vice Presidential candidate, You Betcha!  In the mid-90s, an experiment was conducted over British TV airwaves by the BBC.  During an election cycle they showed subliminal images of candidates–different candidates in different parts of the UK–and the expected results occurred: People tended to prefer the candidate they’d seen subliminally even without knowing they’d seen him.  Thinkscan.com founder Joel Weinberger consulted on this study, as did I.  The results were eventually published in Science, academia’s most prestigious journal (see “Subliminal Perception on TV”, Science, Volume 370, page 103, July 14, 1994).

So Kim Dedeker was right….sort of.  Research as we know it will be dead by 2012, but the future doesn’t lie in chatter or twitter.  It lies in the unconscious. 

Thinkscan, Advertising, Marketing, Subliminal, Unconscious

To find out about Dr. Bornstein, click here to read his bio.

 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON BLOG POSTS, PLEASE ENTER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE IT SAYS “SUBSCRIBE”. ____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

For constant site updates, make sure to subscribe to our RSS feed!