Disability, Subjective Wellbeing And Mixed Emotions In Later Life
Vicki A. FreedmanUniversity of Michigan
Funding for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging Grant P01-AG029409 Project 4.)
CollaboratorsJennifer C. Cornman, ConsultantDeborah Carr, Rutgers UniversityRichard Lucas, Michigan State
Subjective Wellbeing in Later Life• As adults age, they focus on more emotionally
positive aspects of their lives (Carstensen et al. 2003)• As a result, wellbeing often increases despite
declining health and functioning• Studies of both evaluative and positive experienced
wellbeing suggest a u-shaped relationship over the adult life cycle, with the low point in middle age and more satisfaction or happiness reported at younger and older ages (Blanchflower and Oswald 2008; Stone et al. 2010).
Subjective Wellbeing in Later Life• Within later life, satisfaction and positive emotions
appear to peak in the mid-70s before declining back to pre-retirement levels (Blanchflower and Oswald 2008; Stone et al. 2010; Frijters and Beatton 2012)
• In contrast, negative emotions have a less consistent pattern, with anger, stress, and worry declining within later life and sadness increasing beginning in the early 70s (Stone et al. 2010)
Subjective Wellbeing in Later Life• Maintenance of health and functioning appears to be
strongly related to positive subjective wellbeing in later life (George et al. 2010).
• Hedonic adaptation theory (Brickman & Campbell 1971) asserts that individuals adapt to life events that result in negative material conditions, including disability▫ Evidence for hedonic adaptation to disability is actually
quite weak (see Lucas 2007a for a review) and if it does occur, appears to be incomplete (Lucas 2007b)
Prior work
•Demonstrated that among older couples, no matter what the measure of wellbeing, those with disability report worse subjective wellbeing than those without
•The gap in experienced wellbeing could not be accounted for by demographic or economic characteristics or differential activity profiles
Focus Today
•Explore the relationship between disability and subjective wellbeing in all older adults▫Focus on experienced wellbeing▫One emotion at a time▫Explore role of social, psychological,
economic characteristics and time use•Explore factors, including disability, that
predict “mixed” emotions in later life & how they vary by disability
Framework: Linking Disability with Subjective Wellbeing
Activity limitationsImpairments in body functions and structures
Experienced Wellbeing (Individual and Mixed Emotions)
Health Conditions
Activities
Psychological, Social, Economic Resources
Mixed (+/-) Emotions: Terminology
Positive Emotion (Happiness)
+ -
Mixed (+/-) Emotions: Terminology
Positive Emotion (Happiness)
+ -
Mixed (+/-) Emotions: Terminology•Recognize that positive emotions tend to
be correlated more than negative•Can distinguish between selective and
non-selective negative effects ▫Selective: influences happy and one
negative emotion▫Non-selective: influences happy and all
three negative emotions
Disability and Use of Time (DUST)•2013 Supplement to Panel Study of Income
Dynamics, 40-plus year panel study in the U.S.
•1,776 adults ages 60 and older (& spouses/partners) completed 3,505 dairies; 72% response rate
•Same-day diaries obtained from couples•Sample 60+: 1,609 adults, 3,187 diaries,
9,022 randomly selected activities.
Instrument•30-40 minute diary
▫All activities occurred on previous day▫Administered twice (one random weekday,
one random weekend day)•15-20 minute supplemental questionnaire
at time of 1st diary interview▫(global) wellbeing, functioning, marital
quality, stylized time use
Measures of Subjective Wellbeing•Experienced wellbeing
▫Measured intensity of five emotions and two somatic symptoms For 3 randomly selected activities How intensely did R feel an emotion/symptom
(0=not at all to 6 = feeling was very strong)▫Focus on four emotions: Happy, Frustrated,
Worried, Sad
Measures of Disability/Impairment• Dichotomous (yes/no) indicator (ACS)• Severity of Impairments
▫ Have {impairment} in the last 7 days?▫ On how many of the last 7 days did given impairment
limit activities (none, 1-2 days, 3-4 days, 5+ days)• Impairments included:
▫ Breathing problems; Heart or circulation problems; Stomach problems; Back or neck problems; Limited strength or movement in one’s shoulders, arms, hands; Limited strength or movement in one’s hips, legs, knees, feet; Low energy or easily exhausted; difficulty remembering every day things
• Factor analysis suggested one strong factor with loadings >.40 and alpha=.76
Psychological, Social, Economic Resources•Psychological
▫3 personality measures (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness)
▫Spirituality▫Self-efficacy
•Social▫Marital status and relationship quality▫Family relationship quality
•Economic ▫Income, wealth (quartiles)
Activities• Working for pay• Volunteering• Caring for others• Socializing• Physical activity / exercise• Going out for Pleasure• Laundry• Housework• Cooking• Financial management• Shopping
• With spouse, others (vs. alone)
• Home (vs. elsewhere)• Typical day
Modeling Approach•Nested OLS regression models; SE
adjusted for clustering within individual▫Model 1: Demographic, disability and
severity of impairments▫Model 2A-2D: Add psychological, social,
economic, activity factors▫Model 3: Add all factors
Modeling Approach
• Jointly estimated OLS models (SUR) with all four emotions (final model)▫Provides estimate of ρ, which may be
interpreted as the correlation between emotions, net of factors
•Stratify jointly estimated models by disability status▫Using first and fourth quartiles of severity of
impairment
Mean Subjective Wellbeing by Disability Status
Mean Subjective Wellbeing by Severity of Impairment (Quartiles)
Mean Subjective Wellbeing by Duration of Impairment
Respondents with a disability…•are older•have more severe impairments 7 vs. 2 / 32
and for longer (4 vs. <1 year)•higher levels of neuroticism, less
extraversion, and less conscientiousness, more spirituality but less self-efficacy
•lower quality relationships•fewer economic resources•less likely to work and exercise, to be at
home, and to report their day was typical
Disability & Experienced Wellbeing
Unadjusted
Psych Socia
l
Econ Activities
All
Happy (0-6)
Severity of Impairment -0.05** -0.04** -0.04** -0.05** -0.05** -0.04**
Frustrated (0-6)
Severity of Impairment 0.05** 0.03** 0.04** 0.04** 0.04** 0.03**
Worried (0-6)
Severity of Impairment 0.05** 0.04** 0.04** 0.05** 0.05** 0.03**
Sad (0-6)
Severity of Impairment 0.04** 0.03** 0.04** 0.04** 0.04** 0.03**
Accounts for 20-40% of impairment effect
Consistent with Negative Substitution
(Adjusted) Correlations Among Emotions
Happy Frustrated Worried Sad
Happy 1.00
Frustrated -0.34** 1.00
Worried -0.30** 0.47** 1.00
Sad -0.32** 0.37** 0.59** 1.00
(Adjusted) Correlations Among Emotions: by Severity of ImpairmentsSeverity Q1
Happy Frustrated Worried Sad
Happy 1.00
Frustrated -0.30** 1.00
Worried -0.29** 0.45** 1.00
Sad -0.37** 0.30** 0.53** 1.00
Severity Q4
Happy Frustrated Worried Sad
Happy 1.00
Frustrated -0.35** 1.00
Worried -0.30** 0.52** 1.00
Sad -0.30** 0.44** 0.59** 1.00
Factors Predicting Mixed Emotions
(happy, negative)Heightened
Emotion(++)
DampenedEmotion
(--)
Positive Substitution
(+-)
Negative Substitution
(-+)
Severity of disability F, W, S
Psychological
Neuroticism F, W, S
Spirituality F
Self-efficacy F, S
Social
Has romantic partner F
Marital/Rom partner quality F
Family quality F, W, S
Activities
Working F
Doing finances F
Laundry S
Housework W
Typical day F, WF=frustrated W=worried S=sad
Factors Predicting Mixed Emotions By Severity of Impairment
(happy, negative)Heightened
Emotion(++)
DampenedEmotion
(--)
Positive Substitution
(+-)
Negative Substitution
(-+)
Quartile 1
Social
Has romantic partner F, W, S
Activities
Work F
Going out for pleasure F, W, S
F=frustrated W=worried S=sad
(happy, negative)Heightened
Emotion(++)
DampenedEmotion
(--)
Positive Substitution
(+-)
Negative Substitution
(-+)
Quartile 4
Psychological
Neuroticism F, W, S
Self-efficacy F
Summary•Severity of limitations related to subjective
wellbeing in later life▫Partially accounted for by psychological and
social, not economic or activity-related factors•Severity of limitations related to negative
substitution▫Does not appear to be selective (frustrated,
worried, sad all increased, happiness decreased)▫Negative substitution with frustration is stronger
at higher levels of severity; at low levels negative substitution with sadness is stronger
Summary•Process of generating mixed emotions in later
life appears to differ by level of impairments▫E.g. Among those with severe impairments,
psychological factors predict mixed emotions (e.g. neuroticism, self-efficacy)
▫E.g. Among those with few or no impairments, social and activity-related factors predict mixed emotions (e.g. having a romantic partner, going out for pleasure, and working )
•None of the predictors we examined found to be related to heightening of emotion in later life
Limitations•Self-reported, cross-sectional relationships•Limited number of emotions examined
▫Need further examination of additional negative affect to truly conclude “non-selective”
Implications / Next Steps
• Insight into debate on hedonic adaptation▫We conclude like Lucas (2007) that if
individuals who develop disability do adapt, that adaptation is incomplete
•Terminology may be useful in future studies•Next steps: Tired, achy, and miserable? We
can examine how positive and negative emotions correlate with somatic reports of being tired and in pain
Data Availability
•www.psidonline.org