Author
Listed:
- Maria Wirth
- Anna E Kornadt
- Klaus Rothermund
Abstract
ObjectivesEmotional aging research has been dominated by the idea of age-related improvements in emotional experience. However, current mixed empirical findings call for a more differentiated, context-dependent approach. It has been proposed that age-related improvements in emotional experience are present in benign contexts and when age-related gains (e.g., in life experience and knowledge) are salient. In adverse contexts and when age-related losses (e.g., in physical and cognitive functioning) are salient, emotional experience in late adulthood could be more negative.MethodsCombining data from two 14-day daily diary samples (total N = 268, 50–92 years), we tested the association between daily events and positive and negative affect and whether those were moderated by awareness of age-related gains and losses, indicating age-related strengths and vulnerabilities. We also tested whether these associations varied by chronological age.ResultsThe association between stressors and negative affect was moderated by age-related losses and age. Participants reported more negative affect on days with above-average stressor occurrence and more age-related losses. This relation was moderated by age and was most pronounced in our oldest participants (72 years and older). The association between uplift occurrence and positive affect was moderated by daily age-related gains, with more positive affect being experienced on days with more uplifts and below-average age-related gains.DiscussionOur findings support the idea of a differentiated, context-dependent approach to emotional aging and highlight the importance of considering awareness of age-related losses as a vulnerability factor for emotional experience in late adulthood.
Suggested Citation
Maria Wirth & Anna E Kornadt & Klaus Rothermund, 2025.
"Emotional experience related to daily uplifts and stressors: age-differential effects in the context of age-related gains and losses,"
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 80(11), pages 163.-163..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:geronb:v:80:y:2025:i:11:p:gbaf163.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:80:y:2025:i:11:p:gbaf163.. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.