Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 295–303 | Cite as

The Role of Domain Satisfaction in Explaining the Paradoxical Association Between Life Satisfaction and Age

  • Kimberly K. McAdamsEmail author
  • Richard E. Lucas
  • M. Brent Donnellan
Article

Abstract

Although aging is associated with declines in many life domains, overall life satisfaction does not appear to decline sharply with age. One explanation for this paradoxical finding is that several life domains improve with age such that increases in certain domains balance the decreases in others. Because different issues are problematic at different life stages, it is likely that specific domains display different life trajectories compared to overall life satisfaction. The observed pattern for overall life satisfaction is likely due to a bottom-up approach. Life and domain satisfaction data from 8 years of the British Household Panel Study were analyzed to evaluate this hypothesis. Results indicated that satisfaction with some life domains increased after middle age (e.g. social life), whereas satisfaction with other life domains decreased (e.g. health). Additionally, results illustrated that although domain satisfaction scores demonstrate distinct trajectories, the aggregate of these distinct domains resembled the overall life satisfaction trajectory. These findings have implications for top-down and bottom-up models of life satisfaction.

Keywords

Life satisfaction Domain satisfaction Bottom-up models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by National Institute on Aging grants 1R03AG026028-01 and 1R03AG028744-01.

References

  1. Baird, B., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Life satisfaction across the lifespan: Findings from two nationally representative panel studies. Social Indicators, 99, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltes, B. B., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Using life-span models in industrial-organizational psychology: The theory of selective optimization with compensation. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltes, P. B., & Mayer, K. U. (1999). The Berlin Aging Study: Aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2008). Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Social Science and Medicine, 66, 1733–1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deaton, A. (2008). Income, health and wellbeing around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerstorf, D., Ram, N., Estabrook, R., Schupp, J., Wagner, G. G., & Lindenberger, U. (2008a). Life satisfaction shows terminal decline in old age: Longitudinal evidence from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). Developmental Psychology, 44, 1148–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerstorf, D., Ram, N., Röcke, C., Lindenberger, U., & Smith, J. (2008b). Decline in life satisfaction in old age: Longitudinal evidence for links to distance-to-death. Psychology and Aging, 23, 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsieh, C. M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Löckenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health: The increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices. Journal of Personality, 72, 1395–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Age differences in personality: Evidence from a nationally representative Australian sample. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1353–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A., I. I. I. (2003). Modeling intraindividual change in personality traits: Findings from the normative aging study. Journal of Gerontology, 58B, 153–165.Google Scholar
  16. Romero, E., Villar, P., Luengo, M. A., & Gómez-Fraguela, J. A. (2009). Traits, personal strivings and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ryff, C. D. (1989). In the eye of the beholder: Views of psychological well-being among middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scheibe, S., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Emotional aging: Recent findings and future trends. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 65B, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. University of Essex, Institute for Social, Economic Research. (2006). British Household Panel Survey; Waves 1–14, 1991–2005 [computer file]. 2nd Edition. Colchester, Essex UK: Data Archive [distributor]. SN: 5151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberly K. McAdams
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard E. Lucas
    • 2
  • M. Brent Donnellan
    • 2
  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations