| Literature DB >> 34201454 |
Racheli-Lital Gvili1,2, Ehud Bodner1,2.
Abstract
The extent to which older adults' ageist attitudes associate with their will-to-live has barely been studied. Moreover, whether this effect is moderated by older adults' age, medical conditions, and attitudes toward their own aging has not been investigated. These associations were examined by two studies. Study 1 examined the relationship between ageist attitudes and will-to-live among individuals aged 48-97, and the moderating roles of age and medical conditions on this connection. Study 2 reassessed this connection in a new sample of older adults (people aged 60-94 years) and examined the moderating role of their attitudes toward aging in this regard. In line with the hypothesis of the first study, ageist attitudes and will-to-live were negatively associated among older adults with more medical conditions. In accordance with the hypotheses of study 2, the ageist attitudes and will-to-live connection was reconstructed, and when regressed on the ageist attitudes × attitudes toward aging interaction, it remained significant only among those with increased ageist attitudes. These findings demonstrate the negative effect that ageist attitudes may have on will-to-live, especially among the very old, and particularly when their health deteriorates, and support the utility of interventions aimed at increasing their will-to-live.Entities:
Keywords: ageism; attitudes toward aging; medical conditions; stereotypes; will-to-live
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34201454 PMCID: PMC8268392 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136736
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive statistics for the study (n = 744).
| Variables |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ageism | 2.71 | 0.61 | - | |||||||
| 2. MC a | 1.76 | 1.53 | 0.08 * | - | ||||||
| 3. WTL | 5.43 | 0.82 | −0.14 *** | −0.29 *** | - | |||||
| 4. Age | 68.30 | 11.81 | 0.13 *** | 0.40 *** | −0.33 *** | - | ||||
| 5. Gender b | 53.9% | - | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.03 | - | |||
| 6. Marital status c | 74.1% | - | −0.02 | −0.17 *** | −0.13 ** | −0.26 *** | −0.26 *** | - | ||
| 7. Children | 3.00 | 1.53 | 0.003 | −0.01 | 0.06 *** | 0.06 | −0.07 | 0.17 *** | - | |
| 8. Employment d | 50.3% | - | 0.08 * | 0.34 *** | −0.24 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.17 *** | −0.22 *** | 0.09 * | |
| 9. FI e | 1.78 | 1.00 | 0.14 ** | 0.40 *** | −0.34 *** | 0.48 | 0.11 ** | −0.20 *** | 0.10 ** | −0.35 *** |
Note. Correlation values represent Pearson coefficients, except for coefficients for gender and marital status that represent point-biserial coefficients, and those for education that represent Spearman’s rank coefficients. a MC = medical conditions. b Coded: 0 = man, 1 = woman. c Coded: 0 = currently unmarried, 1 = currently married. d Coded: 0 = currently employed, 1 = currently unemployed. e FI = functional impairment. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Hierarchical linear regression predicting WTL (n = 538).
| B | Β |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1: Covariates (∆ | |||
| Gender a | 0.049 | 0.028 | 0.511 |
| Marital status b | 0.132 | 0.070 | 0.115 |
| Children | −0.1 | −0.02 | 0.604 |
| Unemployment c | −0.12 | −0.07 | 0.121 |
| Functional impairment | −0.26 | −0.33 | 0.000 |
| Step 2: Main effects (∆ | |||
| Age | −0.013 | −0.138 | 0.011 |
| Medical conditions | −0.084 | −0.157 | 0.000 |
| Ageist attitudes | −0.128 | −0.089 | 0.027 |
| Step 3: Two-way interactions (∆ | |||
| Age X Medical conditions | −0.022 | −0.025 | 0.533 |
| Age X Ageist attitudes | −0.045 | −0.054 | 0.186 |
| Ageism X Medical conditions | −0.086 | −0.094 | 0.022 |
| Step 4: Three-way interaction (∆ | |||
| Age X Medical conditions X Ageist attitudes | −0.102 | −0.118 | 0.004 |
Note. a Coded: 1 = man, 2 = woman. b Coded: 1 = currently unmarried, 2 = currently married. c Coded: 0 = currently employed, 1 = currently unemployed.
Figure 1The three-way interaction between ageist attitudes, age group, and medical conditions predicting WTL.
Descriptive statistics for the study (n = 349).
| Variables |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ageism | 2.49 | 0.74 | - | ||||||||
| 2. ATA a | 3.69 | 0.62 | −0.24 *** | - | |||||||
| 3. WTL | 5.24 | 0.79 | −0.25 *** | 0.46 *** | - | ||||||
| 4. Age | 72.11 | 10.12 | 0.12 * | −0.05 | −0.07 | - | |||||
| 5. Gender b | 53.6% | - | −0.04 | −0.09 | −0.06 | 0.12 * | - | ||||
| 6. Marital status c | 74.5% | - | −0.04 | 0.18 ** | 0.10 | −0.94 | −0.23 *** | - | |||
| 7. Children | 3.27 | 1.23 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.00 | −0.09 | −0.03 | 0.19 ** | - | ||
| 8. Subjective health | 3.82 | 0.87 | −0.30 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.39 *** | 0.033 | −0.04 | 0.17 ** | −0.04 | - | |
| 9. Unemployment d | 54.4% | - | 0.29 * | −0.17 ** | −0.20 *** | 0.09 | −0.11 * | −0.14 * | −0.03 | −0.31 *** | - |
| 10. FI e | 1.69 | 0.98 | 0.25 ** | −0.17 ** | −0.16 ** | 0.08 | −0.13 * | −0.16 ** | 0.05 | −0.39 *** | 0.15 ** |
Note. Correlation values represent Pearson coefficients, except for coefficients for gender and marital status that represent point-biserial coefficients, and those for education that represent Spearman’s rank coefficients. a ATA = attitudes toward aging. b Coded: 0 = man, 1 = woman. c Coded: 0 = currently unmarried, 1 = currently married. d Coded: 0 = currently employed, 1 = currently unemployed. e FI = Functional impairment. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2The two-way interaction between ageist attitudes and attitudes toward aging predicting WTL.