1. Disability, Subjective Wellbeing And Mixed Emotions In Later Life Vicki A. Freedman University of Michigan Funding for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging Grant P01-AG029409 Project 4.)

2. Collaborators Jennifer C. Cornman, Consultant Deborah Carr, Rutgers University Richard Lucas, Michigan State

3. Subjective Wellbeing in Later Life As adults age, they focus on more emotionally positive aspects of their lives (Carstensen et al. 2003) As a result, wellbeing often increases despite declining health and functioning Studies of both evaluative and positive experienced wellbeing suggest a u-shaped relationship over the adult life cycle, with the low point in middle age and more satisfaction or happiness reported at younger and older ages (Blanchflower and Oswald 2008; Stone et al. 2010).

4. Subjective Wellbeing in Later Life Within later life, satisfaction and positive emotions appear to peak in the mid-70s before declining back to pre-retirement levels (Blanchflower and Oswald 2008; Stone et al. 2010; Frijters and Beatton 2012) In contrast, negative emotions have a less consistent pattern, with anger, stress, and worry declining within later life and sadness increasing beginning in the early 70s (Stone et al. 2010)

5. Subjective Wellbeing in Later Life Maintenance of health and functioning appears to be strongly related to positive subjective wellbeing in later life (George et al. 2010). Hedonic adaptation theory (Brickman & Campbell 1971) asserts that individuals adapt to life events that result in negative material conditions, including disability ▫Evidence for hedonic adaptation to disability is actually quite weak (see Lucas 2007a for a review) and if it does occur, appears to be incomplete (Lucas 2007b)

6. Prior work Demonstrated that among older couples, no matter what the measure of wellbeing, those with disability report worse subjective wellbeing than those without The gap in experienced wellbeing could not be accounted for by demographic or economic characteristics or differential activity profiles

7. Focus Today Explore the relationship between disability and subjective wellbeing in all older adults ▫Focus on experienced wellbeing ▫One emotion at a time ▫Explore role of social, psychological, economic characteristics and time use Explore factors, including disability, that predict “mixed” emotions in later life & how they vary by disability

8. Framework: Linking Disability with Subjective Wellbeing Activity limitations Impairments in body functions and structures Experienced Wellbeing (Individual and Mixed Emotions) Health Conditions Activities Psychological, Social, Economic Resources

9. Mixed (+/-) Emotions: Terminology Heightened Negative Substitution Positive Substitution Dampened Positive Emotion (Happiness) Negative Emotion (Frustration) + -

10. Mixed (+/-) Emotions: Terminology Heightened (UM-MSU football) Negative Substitution (Doing Taxes) Positive Substitution (Winning Lottery) Dampened (Resting; Mundane tasks) Positive Emotion (Happiness) Negative Emotion (Frustration) + -

11. Mixed (+/-) Emotions: Terminology Recognize that positive emotions tend to be correlated more than negative Can distinguish between selective and non- selective negative effects ▫Selective: influences happy and one negative emotion ▫Non-selective: influences happy and all three negative emotions

12. Disability and Use of Time (DUST) 2013 Supplement to Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 40-plus year panel study in the U.S. 1,776 adults ages 60 and older (& spouses/partners) completed 3,505 dairies; 72% response rate Same-day diaries obtained from couples Sample 60+: 1,609 adults, 3,187 diaries, 9,022 randomly selected activities.

13. Instrument 30-40 minute diary ▫All activities occurred on previous day ▫Administered twice (one random weekday, one random weekend day) 15-20 minute supplemental questionnaire at time of 1 st diary interview ▫(global) wellbeing, functioning, marital quality, stylized time use

14. Measures of Subjective Wellbeing Experienced wellbeing ▫Measured intensity of five emotions and two somatic symptoms  For 3 randomly selected activities  How intensely did R feel an emotion/symptom (0=not at all to 6 = feeling was very strong) ▫Focus on four emotions: Happy, Frustrated, Worried, Sad

15. Measures of Disability/Impairment Dichotomous (yes/no) indicator (ACS) Severity of Impairments ▫Have {impairment} in the last 7 days? ▫On how many of the last 7 days did given impairment limit activities (none, 1-2 days, 3-4 days, 5+ days) Impairments included: ▫Breathing problems; Heart or circulation problems; Stomach problems; Back or neck problems; Limited strength or movement in one’s shoulders, arms, hands; Limited strength or movement in one’s hips, legs, knees, feet; Low energy or easily exhausted; difficulty remembering every day things Factor analysis suggested one strong factor with loadings >.40 and alpha=.76

16. Psychological, Social, Economic Resources Psychological ▫3 personality measures (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness) ▫Spirituality ▫Self-efficacy Social ▫Marital status and relationship quality ▫Family relationship quality Economic ▫Income, wealth (quartiles)

17. Activities Working for pay Volunteering Caring for others Socializing Physical activity / exercise Going out for Pleasure Laundry Housework Cooking Financial management Shopping With spouse, others (vs. alone) Home (vs. elsewhere) Typical day

18. Modeling Approach Nested OLS regression models; SE adjusted for clustering within individual ▫Model 1: Demographic, disability and severity of impairments ▫Model 2A-2D: Add psychological, social, economic, activity factors ▫Model 3: Add all factors

19. Modeling Approach Jointly estimated OLS models (SUR) with all four emotions (final model) ▫Provides estimate of ρ, which may be interpreted as the correlation between emotions, net of factors Stratify jointly estimated models by disability status ▫Using first and fourth quartiles of severity of impairment

20. Mean Subjective Wellbeing by Disability Status

21. Mean Subjective Wellbeing by Severity of Impairment (Quartiles)

22. Mean Subjective Wellbeing by Duration of Impairment

23. Respondents with a disability… are older have more severe impairments 7 vs. 2 / 32 and for longer (4 vs. <1 year) higher levels of neuroticism, less extraversion, and less conscientiousness, more spirituality but less self-efficacy lower quality relationships fewer economic resources less likely to work and exercise, to be at home, and to report their day was typical

24. Disability & Experienced Wellbeing UnadjustedPsych SocialEconActivitiesAll Happy (0-6) Severity of Impairment -0.05** -0.04** -0.05** -0.04** Frustrated (0-6) Severity of Impairment 0.05** 0.03**0.04** 0.03** Worried (0-6) Severity of Impairment 0.05** 0.04** 0.05** 0.03** Sad (0-6) Severity of Impairment 0.04** 0.03**0.04** 0.03** Accounts for 20-40% of impairment effect Consistent with Negative Substitution

25. (Adjusted) Correlations Among Emotions HappyFrustratedWorriedSad Happy1.00 Frustrated-0.34**1.00 Worried-0.30**0.47**1.00 Sad-0.32**0.37**0.59**1.00

26. (Adjusted) Correlations Among Emotions: by Severity of Impairments Severity Q1HappyFrustratedWorriedSad Happy1.00 Frustrated-0.30**1.00 Worried-0.29**0.45**1.00 Sad-0.37**0.30**0.53**1.00 Severity Q4HappyFrustratedWorriedSad Happy1.00 Frustrated-0.35**1.00 Worried-0.30**0.52**1.00 Sad-0.30**0.44**0.59**1.00

27. Factors Predicting Mixed Emotions (happy, negative) Heightened Emotion (++) Dampened Emotion (--) Positive Substitution (+-) Negative Substitution (-+) Severity of disabilityF, W, S Psychological Neuroticism F, W, S Spirituality F Self-efficacy F, S Social Has romantic partner F Marital/Rom partner quality F Family quality F, W, S Activities Working F Doing finances F Laundry S Housework W Typical day F, W F=frustrated W=worried S=sad

28. Factors Predicting Mixed Emotions By Severity of Impairment (happy, negative) Heightened Emotion (++) Dampened Emotion (--) Positive Substitution (+-) Negative Substitution (-+) Quartile 1 Social Has romantic partner F, W, S Activities Work F Going out for pleasure F, W, S F=frustrated W=worried S=sad (happy, negative) Heightened Emotion (++) Dampened Emotion (--) Positive Substitution (+-) Negative Substitution (-+) Quartile 4 Psychological Neuroticism F, W, S Self-efficacy F

29. Summary Severity of limitations related to subjective wellbeing in later life ▫Partially accounted for by psychological and social, not economic or activity-related factors Severity of limitations related to negative substitution ▫Does not appear to be selective (frustrated, worried, sad all increased, happiness decreased) ▫Negative substitution with frustration is stronger at higher levels of severity; at low levels negative substitution with sadness is stronger

30. Summary Process of generating mixed emotions in later life appears to differ by level of impairments ▫E.g. Among those with severe impairments, psychological factors predict mixed emotions (e.g. neuroticism, self-efficacy) ▫E.g. Among those with few or no impairments, social and activity-related factors predict mixed emotions (e.g. having a romantic partner, going out for pleasure, and working ) None of the predictors we examined found to be related to heightening of emotion in later life

31. Limitations Self-reported, cross-sectional relationships Limited number of emotions examined ▫Need further examination of additional negative affect to truly conclude “non-selective”

32. Implications / Next Steps Insight into debate on hedonic adaptation ▫We conclude like Lucas (2007) that if individuals who develop disability do adapt, that adaptation is incomplete Terminology may be useful in future studies Next steps: Tired, achy, and miserable? We can examine how positive and negative emotions correlate with somatic reports of being tired and in pain

33. Data Availability www.psidonline.org