4.5 Article

Aging and Subjective Well-Being in Later Life

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbu006

关键词

Ageing; Cohort; Growth curve modeling; Subjective well-being

资金

  1. funding for the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing - National Institute of Aging [2RO1AG7664-01A1, 2RO1AG017644]
  2. Lifelong Health and Wellbeing Cross-Council Programme [MRC G1001375]
  3. ESRC funding [ES/J0191191/1]
  4. ESRC [ES/J019119/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. MRC [G1001375] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J019119/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G1001375] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. This paper examines age-related changes in subjective well-being (SWB) in later life using multiple measures that cover eudemonic, evaluative, and affective dimensions of well-being. Method. Using data from 5 waves of respondents aged 50 and older from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (2002-11), we fit multilevel linear growth curve models to examine the cohort differences and individual aging effects on quality of life, depressive symptomatology, and life satisfaction. Results. Older cohorts are shown to have equivalent or better SWB than younger cohorts for each well-being measure. Nonetheless, individual aging effects for each well-being measure were observed with deterioration in well-being being greatest in older cohorts, even when adjusting for age-related changes in later life, including widowhood, retirement, and declining health. Discussion. The results suggest that although older cohorts enjoy higher levels of SWB than their younger counterparts when under similar circumstances, they experience sharper declines, especially in the very oldest cohorts. The findings demonstrate the importance of separating out cohort differences and aging effects and also of taking into account the multidimensionality of SWB to determine the point at which age deterioration begins to occur across different measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据