IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v72y2017i1p61-70..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Aging in a Social and Affective Context: Advances Over the Past 50 Years

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A. Kensinger
  • Angela H. Gutchess

Abstract

Objective: This review contemplates the recent consideration of social and affective factors within the study of cognitive aging and examines the multiple ways in which these factors intersect.Methods: The article briefly reviews the models applied to cognitive aging and considers how they can inform the understanding of socioaffective aging. It then discusses the ways in which socioaffective and cognitive abilities intersect.Results: Models of cognitive aging can fruitfully be applied to socioaffective aging, although with some points of divergence. The interactions between cognitive and socioaffective aging are multifaceted and include bidirectional influences.Discussion: Socioaffective domains may preserve function within cognitive domains in part because socioaffective processing provides a rich source of environmental support and links to motivated cognition. The authors outline future directions related to these hypotheses.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A. Kensinger & Angela H. Gutchess, 2017. "Cognitive Aging in a Social and Affective Context: Advances Over the Past 50 Years," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 72(1), pages 61-70.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:72:y:2017:i:1:p:61-70.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbw056
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Westbrook & Daria Kester & Todd S Braver, 2013. "What Is the Subjective Cost of Cognitive Effort? Load, Trait, and Aging Effects Revealed by Economic Preference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Susanne Scheibe & Laura L. Carstensen, 2010. "Emotional Aging: Recent Findings and Future Trends," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 65(2), pages 135-144.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natalie Riedel & Johannes Siegrist & Natalia Wege & Adrian Loerbroks & Peter Angerer & Jian Li, 2017. "Do Effort and Reward at Work Predict Changes in Cognitive Function? First Longitudinal Results from the Representative German Socio-Economic Panel," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-11, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julia Grass & Florian Krieger & Philipp Paulus & Samuel Greiff & Anja Strobel & Alexander Strobel, 2019. "Thinking in action: Need for Cognition predicts Self-Control together with Action Orientation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Wouter Kool & Fiery A Cushman & Samuel J Gershman, 2016. "When Does Model-Based Control Pay Off?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-34, August.
    3. Kathryn Hale & Truls Østbye & Bilesha Perera & Robert Bradley & Joanna Maselko, 2019. "A Novel Adaptation of the HOME Inventory for Elders: The Importance of the Home Environment Across the Life Course," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Carla Estrada-Muñoz & Dante Castillo & Alejandro Vega-Muñoz & Joan Boada-Grau, 2020. "Teacher Technostress in the Chilean School System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Vanda Viola & Annalisa Tosoni & Ambra Brizi & Ilaria Salvato & Arie W Kruglanski & Gaspare Galati & Lucia Mannetti, 2015. "Need for Cognitive Closure Modulates How Perceptual Decisions Are Affected by Task Difficulty and Outcome Relevance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Kimberly McAdams & Richard Lucas & M. Donnellan, 2012. "The Role of Domain Satisfaction in Explaining the Paradoxical Association Between Life Satisfaction and Age," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 295-303, November.
    7. Junji Kageyama & Kazuma Sato, 2021. "Explaining the U-shaped life satisfaction: dissatisfaction as a driver of behavior," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 179-202, July.
    8. Zohar Rusou & Moty Amar & Shahar Ayal, 2020. "The psychology of task management: The smaller tasks trap," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 586-599, July.
    9. Arian Aflaki & Pnina Feldman & Robert Swinney, 2019. "Becoming Strategic: Endogenous Consumer Time Preferences and Multiperiod Pricing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 1116-1131, July.
    10. Anna Schlomann & Mareike Bünning & Lena Hipp & Hans-Werner Wahl, 2022. "Aging during COVID-19 in Germany: a longitudinal analysis of psychosocial adaptation," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1077-1086, December.
    11. Cara A. Palmer & Amy L. Gentzler, 2019. "Age-Related Differences in Savoring Across Adulthood: The Role of Emotional Goals and Future Time Perspective," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1281-1304, April.
    12. Neda Nasrollahi & Tim Jowett & Liana Machado, 2022. "Emotional information processing in young and older adults: meta-analysis reveals faces elicit distinct biases," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 369-379, September.
    13. Nathalie Hauk & Anja S Göritz & Stefan Krumm, 2019. "The mediating role of coping behavior on the age-technostress relationship: A longitudinal multilevel mediation model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, March.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:586-599 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Ottar Hellevik, 2017. "The U-shaped age–happiness relationship: real or methodological artifact?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 177-197, January.
    16. Schlomann, Anna & Bünning, Mareike & Hipp, Lena & Wahl, Hans-Werner, 2021. "Aging during COVID-19 in Germany: a longitudinal analysis of psychosocial adaptation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Online Fi, pages 1-1.
    17. R Asaad Baksh & Sharon Abrahams & Bonnie Auyeung & Sarah E MacPherson, 2018. "The Edinburgh Social Cognition Test (ESCoT): Examining the effects of age on a new measure of theory of mind and social norm understanding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Eric D. Leshikar & Jung M. Park & Angela H. Gutchess, 2015. "Similarity to the Self Affects Memory for Impressions of Others in Younger and Older Adults," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 70(5), pages 737-742.
    19. Lourdes Rey & Natalio Extremera & Nicolás Sánchez-Álvarez, 2019. "Clarifying The Links Between Perceived Emotional Intelligence and Well-Being in Older People: Pathways Through Perceived Social Support from Family and Friends," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(1), pages 221-235, March.
    20. Susan D Shenkin & Roger Watson & Ken Laidlaw & John M Starr & Ian J Deary, 2014. "The Attitudes to Ageing Questionnaire: Mokken Scaling Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    21. Arthur A. Stone & Stefan Schneider & Alan Krueger & Joseph E. Schwartz & Angus Deaton, 2018. "Experiential Wellbeing Data from the American Time Use Survey: Comparisons with Other Methods and Analytic Illustrations with Age and Income," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 359-378, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:72:y:2017:i:1:p:61-70.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.