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