|Title||Aging and life experience in adulthood. Research data.|
|Original Title||Altern und Lebenserfahrung im Erwachsenenalter (ALLEE): Forschungsdaten|
|Citation||Baltes, M., & Lang, F. (2012). Aging and life experience in adulthood. Research data. [Translated Title] (Version 1) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Center for Research Data in Psychology: PsychData of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.lgfr97al01|
|Language of variable documentation||German|
|Responsible for Data Collection||Baltes, Margret M.; Lang, Frieder R.|
|Data Collection Completion Date||1999|
|Study Description||In this research project the empirical usefulness of the metamodel "Selektiven Optimierung mit Kompensation " (SOK; or selective optimization with compensation, SOC, Baltes, 1998; Baltes & Carstensen, 1999) was examined. It was analyzed whether the use of selection, optimization, and compensation is associated with an improved adaptability of the individual. A total of 480 adults aged 20-90 years (stratified by age and gender) took part in the investigation.
The SOC model posits that individuals use the strategies of selection, optimization, and compensation to adjust to age-related changes. The SOC model consists of 3 components (Baltes & Carstensen, 2003): Selection describes a goal-dependent constriction of life- or functional areas. Two forms of selection can be distinguished (Freund & Baltes, 2000): Elective selection refers to an arbitrary, self-regulated selection of goals or functional areas while loss-based selection is a selection of goals (functional areas) in response to internal or external circumstances. Optimization refers to the refinement and improvement of resources in selected areas of functioning. Compensation is generally regarded as a response to actual or anticipated losses, and refers to the use of new and alternative means of achieving a goal.
As part of the research project different survey methods were used, among them measures of psychological well-being, loneliness, social motives, life investment, affectivity, health, cognitive performance and social relationships. To assess the components of the SOC model a specially developed questionnaire was used and tested (Baltes et al., 1999). A good reliability and construct validity of the questionnaire was shown, proving it capable of capturing psychological adaptability across a wide range of ages. In addition, it was found that older adults used elective selection more frequently than young- and middle-aged adults while rarely using loss-based selection, optimization, and compensation. These age differences were related to resource availability: Healthy, cognitively high functioning, emotionally stable, and socially well-integrated adults with only limited resources at their disposal more often implemented loss-based selection strategies, optimization, and compensation as an adult.
The results of the research project are consistent with basic assumptions of the model of selective optimization with compensation for the area of general life management and regulation of social integration in adulthood. The findings show that beyond the effects on biological, psychological, and social resources, individuals can better cope with development-related challenges if they use components of the metamodel of selective optimization with compensation.
|Hypotheses||This project was based on the following research questions:
(1) In a heterogeneous sample of young, middle-aged and old adults, which test attributes does the Selective Optimization with Compensation Questionnaire have?
(2) Can age-related differences in the use of the SOK components be demonstrated? What is the association between the SOK components and indicators of subjective well-being?
(3) To what extent are the SOK components able to be empirically proved and specified within the context of the socio-emotional selectivity theory?
|Keyphrase||relationship between perceived control over development & subjective well-being across adulthood; total of 480 subjects aged 20-90 years; primary data|
|Funding||German Research Foundation (DFG)|
|Rating||Using the information available after initial telephone contact (sex, age, education, marital status, life satisfaction, subjective health), selectivity analyses were performed using the methods suggested by Lindenberger and colleagues (Lindenberger et al, 1996): Study participants were more educated and happier with their health than non-participants (Lüdtke, Tomasik & Lang, 2003). The effect of subjective health on participation was significantly stronger in old adults than young adults (Lüdtke, Tomasik & Lang, 2003). A comparison of the final sample with the initial sample yielded marginally significant differences, whose effect sizes stayed under a quarter standard deviation (d < .25). The effects are comparable to those reported by Lindenberger et al. (1996) for the Berlin Age Study (BASE). These authors come to the conclusion that this is “considering the size of sample drop out and the high mean age of the participants (…) a thoroughly satisfactory result.” Thus the effects point only to a marginal amount of selective sample drop out.|
|Classification||Psychosocial & Personality Development
|Controlled Terms||Developmental Psychology
Internal External Locus of Control
Quality of Life
|Research Method Description||Questionnaire Data|
|Classification of Data Collection||Combined Standardized Survey Instruments (Combination of various standardized sections)|
|Research Instrument||In this project, various instruments were used, some of which had already been further developed and tested in the Berlin Age Study (cf. Baltes & Lang, 1997). Besides the telephone interview, 6 questionnaires were part of the actual survey. Each of the instruments are listed in the following, in the order in which they were presented to the participants. Each of the descriptions can be looked up in the corresponding literature.
Personal data: Demographic data, health status, life satisfaction, notable life event (Lüdtke, Tomasik & Lang, 2003).
Questionnaire A (self descriptions): German version of the Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale (PGCMS; cf. Lang & Heckhausen, 2001; Lawton, 1975; Smith & Baltes, 1996); Future Perspectives Scale (Carstensen & Lang, 1996; Lang & Carstensen, 2002); Social Motives Questionnaire (unpublished document); German version of the 8-Item Short Form of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Smith & Baltes, 1996; Russell et al., 1984); German version of the RYFF Scale of Psychological Well-Being (cf. Ryff &Keyes, 1995); German version of the "Personal Control Inventory" from Pulkkinen & Rönkä (1994; Lang, 2000); German version of the "Big Five Inventory" (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; Lang, Lüdtke & Asendorpf, 2001); Assessment of Life Investment (Staudinger et al., 1996; Staudinger & Fleeson, W., 1995); Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988; Smith & Baltes, 1996); Selective Optimization with Compensation Questionnaire (Baltes et al, 1999).
Questionnaire B: Cognitive performance was assessed using the three scales perception speed (digit symbol and digit letter), word flow (words with the initial letter “s” and “find words”) and general knowledge (cf. Lindenberger & Reischies, 1999).
Questionnaire C (health): German version of the SF-36 Health Survey (Bullinger, Kirchberger, & Ware, 1995); German version of the Symptom Checklist–90–R (SCL-90-R; Derogatis & Cleary, 1977); German version of the Center for Epidemologic Studies –Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977); Simple and Tandem Romberg Test (Steinhagen-Thiessen & Borchelt, 1996; cf. also Tinetti, 1986).
Questionnaire D (social relationships): Social Relationships Questionnaire (Kahn & Antonucci, 1980, Wagner, Schütze & Lang, 1996).
Questionnaire E: Card-laying technique for the assessment of social goals and partner preferences (Lang & Carstensen, 2002).
Questionnaire F: Yesterday Interview (Baltes et al., 1996).
|Data Collection Method||Data collection in the presence of an experimenter
- Individual Administration
- Paper and Pencil
|Time Points||single measurement|
|Survey Time Period||1996 to 1999|
|Population||Population of Berlin aged 20-90 years|
|Sample||Stratified, systematic Sample|
|Subject Recruitment||The participants’ addresses were acquired by means of probability sampling from the Berlin population register. 50 addresses were pulled out of each of the groups of men and women born between 1907 - 1926, 1932 - 1951 and 1957 - 1976. After a second randomization procedure, these addresses were listed in a random order. Of the 1531 young, middle-aged and old adults contacted using the randomized list, 1022 people (66.8 %) took part in a short telephone interview. Of these, 8 men and 8 women from each of the 60 years of birth were recruited for study participation. This strategy lead to oversampling, so that a total of 546 people took part in the study. Finally, to minimize possible sampling effects, only complete data from the first eight participants of each year of birth and sex group were included. This allowed the realization of a completely balanced design pertaining to year of birth and sex with N = 480 (31.4 %) participants (80 men and 80 women in each of the age groups: 20-40 years, 45-65 years and 70-90 years).
If participants weren’t mobile for personal reasons (e.g. child care, physical disability) they were either visited by an interviewer at home (N = 70) or brought by taxi (N = 82). All participants received 50.00 DM for their participation.
|Sample Size||480 individuals|
|Return/Drop Out||The 480 study participants correspond to 31.3 % of the total 1531 people contacted before the beginning of the study. Of these 1531 people, 1022 (66.8 %) took part in a short telephone interview at initial contact. Selectivity analyses show marginal effects of sample selectivity (d< 0,25). The study participants were more educated and happier with their health than non-participants (Lüdtke, Tomasik & Lang, 2003).|
|Gender Distribution||50% female subjects (n=240)
50% male subjects (n=240)
|Age Distribution||20-40 years, 45-65 years and 70-90 years|
|Variables||Demographic data from the telephone interview (participation status, interview date, date and place of birth, educational status, professional status, marital status)
Notable life event in the past 12 months
Demographic data (marital status, children, living situation, professional status, income status)
Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Skala
Future Perspectives Scale
Social Motives Questionnaire
UCLA Loneliness Scale
RYFF Scale of Psychological Well-Being
Personal Control Inventory
Big Five Inventory
Assessment of Life Investment
Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale
Selective Optimization with Compensation Questionnaire
Verbal Knowledge Test
Perceptual Speed Test
Short Form Health Survey
Symptom Checklist 90R
Center for Epidemologic Studies–Depression Scale
Negative social exchange
Satisfaction with social relationships
Social Relationships (pie chart method)
|Data Status||Data Set Excerpt|
|Original Records||Questionnaire filled out by either the subject or the experimenter containing closed and/or open answers.
Other format, e.g. card-laying technique, observation protocols, ...
|Transformation||The original records were transferred into a data matrix via simple encoding rules.
The provided dataset lgfr97al01_fd1.txt contains the research data on personal data, Questionnaire A, Questionnaire C as well as Questionnaire B without the variables on general knowledge. In addition, it contains aggregated variables from Questionnaire D and other derived variables.
Furthermore, the provided dataset lgfr97al01_fd2.txt contains the research data from Questionnaire D.
The codebooks corresponding to the research datasets are provided.
|Description||Research data set|
|Data Content||480 subjects, 403 variables|
|Data Points||480*403=175680 data points|
|Variables||Subject code (1item) Participation status (1 item) Gender (1 item) Demographic data from the telephone interview (16 items) Health status (1 item) Life satisfaction (1 item) Notable life event in the past 12 months (2 items) Demographic data (20 items) Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Skala (15 items) Future Perspectives Scale (10 items) Social Motives Questionnaire (18 items) UCLA loneliness Scale (8 items) RYFF Scale of Psychological Well-Being (18 items) Personal Control Inventory (18 items) Job satisfaction (1 item) Big Five Inventory (45 items) Assessment of Life Investment (10 items) Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (20 items) Selective Optimization with Compensation Questionnaire (47 items) Vocabulary (2 items) Verbal Knowledge Test (1 item) Perceptual Speed Test (2 item) Short Form Health Survey (35 items) Symptom Checklist 90R (12 items) Center for Epidemologic Studies–Depression Scale (20 items) Romberg-Test (7 items) Received support (9 items) Negative social exchange (3 items) Satisfaction with social relationships (3 items) Social Relationships (22 aggregate variables) Demographic data (15 derived variables)|
|Description||Research data file of the social network|
|Data Content||5843 network partner, 16 variables|
|Data Points||5843*16=93488 data points|
|Variables||Subject code (break variable) (1 item) Naming of network partners (order, circle, further named) (3 items) Demographic data on the network partner (age, sex) (2 items) Relationship to the network partner (1 item) Duration of the relationship (2 items, of these 1 derived variable) Survey year (1 item) Influence on/through the network partner (2 items) Advice/recognition/affection received from the network partner (3 items) Affection given to the network partner (1 item)|
|German codebook of the research data file lgfr97al01_fd1.txt||lgfr97al01_kb1.txt|
|German codebook of the research data file lgfr97al01_fd2.txt||lgfr97al01_kb2.txt|
|Publications Directly Related to the Dataset|
|Utilized Test Methods|
|Baltes, P. B., Baltes, M. M., Freund, A. M., & Lang, F. (1999). The measurement of selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC) by self report: Technical report . Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Berlin: Materialien aus der Bildungsforschung Nr. 66.|
|Carstensen, L. L., & Lang, F. R. (1996). Future Orientation Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.|
|Derogatis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: A study in construct validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 981–989.|
|John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The "Big Five" Inventory - Versions 4a and 54 . University of California, Berkeley: Institute for Personality and Social Research.|
|Kahn, R.L., & Antonucci, T.C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In P.B. Baltes & O.G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 254-283). New York: Academic Press.|
|Lawton, M.P. (1975). The Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: A revision. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 85-89.|
|Moss, M. & Lawton, M.P. (1982). Time budgets of older people: A window on four lifestyles. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 576-582.|
|Pulkkinen, L. & Rönkä, A. (1994). Personal contol over development, identity formation, and future orientation as components of life orientation: A developmental approach. Developmental Psychology, 30 , 260-271.|
|Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement,1, 385–401.|
|Russell, D., Cutrona, C.E., Rose, J., Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An examination of Weiss´typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1313-1321.|
|Ryff, C.D. & Keyes, C.L.M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.|
|Staudinger, U.M., & Fleeson, W. (1995). Life investment in a sample of 20 to 105 year olds. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Berlin.|
|Tinettti, M.E. (1986). A performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 34, 119-126.|
|Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.|
|Baltes, M. M., & Carstensen, L. L. (1999). Social psychological theories and their application to aging: From individual to collective social psychology. In V. L. Bengtson & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of theories of aging (pp. 209-226). New York: Springer.|
|Baltes, M. M., & Lang, F. R. (1997). Everday functioning and successful aging: The impact of resources. Psychology and Aging, 12 , 433-443.|
|Carstensen, L. L. (1993). Motivation for social contact across the life span. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 209-254). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.|
|Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.|
|Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (1998). Social relationships and adaptation in late life. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive Clinical Psycholog y (Vol. 7, pp. 55-72). Oxford: Pergamon.|