European Journal of Ageing

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 254–263

Cohort- and age-related decline in elder’s life satisfaction: is there really a paradox?

Original Investigation

Abstract

Absence of age-related decline in elder’s life satisfaction (LS), found in several studies from the last quarter of the twentieth century, has been labelled a “paradox”, as it contrasts with increasing psycho-social and health risks in old age. To explain these findings, the present study was based on the hypothesis of a cohort effect on the LS of those born in the first half of the twentieth century, which might have overlayed and thus obscured the age-related decline in cross-sectional studies. In addition, it was hypothesized that the age-related decline in LS accelerates over the old age period such that the “paradox” would not hold for old–old subjects. Longitudinal analysis was conducted by means of multilevel mixed models, using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel. Analyzing single-item measures of LS from 16 panel waves (1984–1999), the findings confirm both hypotheses. For the young–old, cohort- and age-related decline was found with about equal decrements in LS per year of birth or age, neutralizing age-group differences in cross-sectional comparisons. For the old–old, the age-related decline appeared accelerated, outnumbering the cohort effect.

Keywords

Well-being Life satisfaction Aging Longitudinal studies Multilevel mixed models 

References

  1. Baltes MM, Carstensen LL (1996) The process of successful aging. Ageing Soci 16:397–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltes PB, Mayer KU (1999) The Berlin aging study: aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltes PB, Smith J (1999) Multilevel and systemic analyses of old age: theoretical and empirical evidence for a fourth age. In: Bengtson VL, Schaie KW (eds) Handbook of theories of aging. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 153–173Google Scholar
  4. Biesanz JC, Deeb-Sossa N, Papadakis AA, Bollen KA, Curran PJ (2004) The role of coding time in estimating and interpreting growth curve models. Psychol Methods 9:30–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandtstädter J, Greve W (1994) The aging self: stabilizing and protective processes. Dev Rev 14:52–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coni N, Davison W, Webster S (1992) Ageing: the facts. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener E, Suh EM (1997) Age and subjective well-being: an international analysis. Annu Rev Gerontol Geriatr 17:304–324Google Scholar
  8. Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 125:276–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donaldson G, Horn JL (1992) Age, cohort, and time developmental muddles: easy in practice, hard in theory. Exp Aging Res 18:213–222Google Scholar
  10. Doyle D, Forehand MJ (1984) Life satisfaction and old age. Res Aging 6:432–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fries JF (1980) Aging, natural death, and the compression of morbidity. N Engl J Med 139:130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haisken-DeNew JP, Frick JR (2003) Desktop companion to the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (GSOEP). Retrieved September 5, 2005, from German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin. http://www.diw.de/english/sop/service/dtc/index.html
  13. Herzog AR, Rodgers WL (1981) Age and satisfaction: data from several large surveys. Res Aging 3:142–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horley J, Lavery JJ (1995) Subjective well-being and age. Soc Indic Res 34:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolberg KJS (1999) Biological development and health risk. In: Whitman TL, Merluzzi TV, White RD (eds) Life-span perspectives on health and illness. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 23–45Google Scholar
  16. Kroh M, Spieß M (2005) Documentation of sample sizes and panel attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) 1984–2004. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin. http://www.diw.de/english/sop/service/doku/index.html
  17. Kunzmann U, Little TD, Smith J (2000) Is age-related stability of subjective well-being a paradox? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the Berlin aging study. Psychol Aging 15:511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landua D (1993) Veränderungen von Zufriedenheitsangaben in Panelbefragungen: Eine Analyse über nicht beabsichtigte Effekte der Längsschnittdesigns (Changes in satisfaction reports in panel surveys: an analysis of non-intentional effects of longitudinal designs). Kölner Z Soz Sozialpsychol 45:553–571Google Scholar
  19. Larson R (1978) Thirty years of research on the subjective well-being of older Americans. J Gerontol 33:109–125Google Scholar
  20. Maas CJM, Snijders TAB (2003) The multilevel approach to repeated measures for complete and incomplete data. Qual Quant 37:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Masche JG, van Dulmen MHM (2004) Advances in disentangling age, cohort, and time effects: no quadrature of the circle, but a help. Dev Rev 24:322–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michalos AC (1985) Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Soc Indic Res 16:347–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mroczek DK, Spiro A (2005) Change in life satisfaction during adulthood: findings from the veterans affairs normative aging study. J Pers Soc Psychol 88:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neugarten BL (1974) Age groups in American society and the rise of the young–old. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 9:197–198Google Scholar
  25. SAS Institute Inc. (1999) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8. SAS Insitute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  26. Schafer JL, Graham JW (2002) Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 7:147–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaie KW (1965) A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychol Bull 64:92–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schilling OK (2003) Längsschnittliche Analysen zur Entwicklung der Zufriedenheit im höheren Lebensalter (Longitudinal analyses on the development of satisfaction in older age). Doctoral dissertation, University of Heidelberg. http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/4578
  29. Schilling OK (2005) Development of life satisfaction in old age: another view on the “paradox”. Soc Indic Res (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Schräpler JP (1995) Die Schätzung von Reliabilität und Stabilität der Zufriedenheitsangaben im Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (The estimation of reliability and stability of satisfaction reports in the Socio-Economic Panel). Ruhr University Bochum, Faculty for the Social Sciences, Discussion Paper 95–13Google Scholar
  31. Smith J, Fleeson W, Geiselmann B, Settersten R, Kunzmann U (1999) Sources of well-being in very old age. In: Baltes PB, Mayer KU (eds) The Berlin aging study: aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 450–471Google Scholar
  32. SOEP Group (2001) The German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) after more than 15 years—overview. Vierteljahrsh Wirtschaftsforsch 70:7–14Google Scholar
  33. Staudinger UM (2000) Viele Gründe sprechen dagegen, und trotzdem geht es vielen Menschen gut: Das Paradox des subjektiven Wohlbefindens (Many reasons speak against it, yet many people feel good: the paradox of subjective well-being). Psychol Rundsch 51:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Veenhoven R (1996) Developments in satisfaction research. Soc Indic Res 37:1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson W (1967) Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychol Bull 67:294–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Centre for Research on Ageing at the University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations