INTRODUCTION: Older adults are often worse than younger adults at adapting to changing situational demands, and this difference is commonly attributed to an age-related decline in acquiring and updating information. Previous research on aging and cognitive flexibility has used measures that require adapting to novel associations learned during a laboratory task (e.g., choice X led to positive outcomes but now leads to negative outcomes). However, in everyday life people must frequently overcome associations based on preexisting beliefs and biases (e.g., you like to eat cake, but your doctor said to limit your sugar intake). The goal of the present study was to examine possible age-differences in overcoming a preexisting bias and determine whether age-related changes in the acquisition and updating of information influence this form of flexibility. METHOD: Older (n = 20) and younger (n = 20) adults completed a novel task in which repeated choices were made between a sure option (gain or loss) and one of two risky options that were initially ambiguous. Optimal performance required overcoming a framing bias toward being risk seeking to avoid a sure loss and risk averse when offered a sure gain. Probe questions assessed knowledge of choice outcomes, while skin conductance assessed physiological reactions to choices and choice outcomes. RESULTS: Both older and younger adults demonstrated flexibility by reducing the impact of bias over trials, but younger adults had better performance overall. Age-differences were associated with distinct aspects of processing. Young adults had more precise knowledge of choice outcomes and developed skin conductance responses in anticipation of bad choices that were not apparent in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults showed significant improvement over trials in their ability to decrease bias-driven choices, but younger showed greater flexibility. Age-differences in task performance were based on differences in learning and corresponding representations of task-relevant information.
INTRODUCTION: Older adults are often worse than younger adults at adapting to changing situational demands, and this difference is commonly attributed to an age-related decline in acquiring and updating information. Previous research on aging and cognitive flexibility has used measures that require adapting to novel associations learned during a laboratory task (e.g., choice X led to positive outcomes but now leads to negative outcomes). However, in everyday life people must frequently overcome associations based on preexisting beliefs and biases (e.g., you like to eat cake, but your doctor said to limit your sugar intake). The goal of the present study was to examine possible age-differences in overcoming a preexisting bias and determine whether age-related changes in the acquisition and updating of information influence this form of flexibility. METHOD: Older (n = 20) and younger (n = 20) adults completed a novel task in which repeated choices were made between a sure option (gain or loss) and one of two risky options that were initially ambiguous. Optimal performance required overcoming a framing bias toward being risk seeking to avoid a sure loss and risk averse when offered a sure gain. Probe questions assessed knowledge of choice outcomes, while skin conductance assessed physiological reactions to choices and choice outcomes. RESULTS: Both older and younger adults demonstrated flexibility by reducing the impact of bias over trials, but younger adults had better performance overall. Age-differences were associated with distinct aspects of processing. Young adults had more precise knowledge of choice outcomes and developed skin conductance responses in anticipation of bad choices that were not apparent in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults showed significant improvement over trials in their ability to decrease bias-driven choices, but younger showed greater flexibility. Age-differences in task performance were based on differences in learning and corresponding representations of task-relevant information.
Authors: Anthony Brennan; Lars Marstaller; Hana Burianová; David Benton; Claire J Hanley; Simon Newstead; Hayley A Young Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 5.551