4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Gender differences in older adults' everyday cognitive collaboration

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01650250143000319

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R03 AG015622-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [T32 MH018904] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [T32MH018904] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R03AG015622] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Collaborative cognition research has demonstrated that social partners can positively impact individuals' thinking and problem-solving performance. Research in adulthood and aging has been less clear about dyadic effects, such as partner gender, on collaborative cognition. The current study examined the objective and subjective experiences of older men and women's collaboration on three everyday problems. Tasks included comprehension of everyday printed materials, a social dilemma task, and an errand-planning task. A sample of 98 older married couples (N = 196) worked both collaboratively and individually with either their spouse (N = 52 dyads) or a stranger of the other gender (N = 46 dyads). Analyses conducted using the actor-partner methodology (e.g., Gonzalez Griffin, 1997; Kenny, 1996) suggest that men tended to be more influential during dyadic problem solving, particularly on more ambiguous tasks. Subjective appraisals of collaboration also varied between male and female partners, with familiarity of partner playing a large role in expectations of collaboration. Most notably, women assigned to work with an unfamiliar male partner tended to rate their satisfaction with collaborative teamwork less positively. Both self and partner-rated subjective appraisals, particularly expectations of competitiveness, were predictive of collaborative performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available