Literature DB >> 36052179

Emotional information processing in young and older adults: meta-analysis reveals faces elicit distinct biases.

Neda Nasrollahi1,2, Tim Jowett1,3, Liana Machado1,2.   

Abstract

Although a number of empirical studies have found support for distinct emotional information processing biases in young versus older adults, it remains unclear whether these biases are driven by differential processing of positive or negative emotional information (or both) and whether they are moderated by stimulus type, in particular face versus non-face, the former of which is known to be subject to distinct processing. To address these gaps in the literature, our analyses included 2237 younger (mean age = 21.61 years) and 2136 older (mean age = 70.58 years) adults from 73 data sets, 19 involving face stimuli and 54 involving non-face stimuli (objects or scenes). Our findings indicated a significant overall age-related positivity effect (Hedge's g = 0.35) when comparing positive and negative stimuli, but consideration of emotionally neutral stimuli revealed significant age differences in emotional processing for negative stimuli only, with younger adults showing a stronger negativity bias. Furthermore, compared to emotionally neutral stimuli, both younger and older adults showed evidence of biases toward non-face positive and negative stimuli and toward positive but not negative face stimuli. Thus, although the present meta-analysis found evidence of an overall age-related positivity effect consistent with a shift toward positivity with aging, a different picture emerged when comparing emotional against neutral stimuli, and consideration of stimulus type revealed a distinct pattern for face stimuli, which may reflect the biological and social significance of facial expressions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10433-021-00676-w.
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aging; Faces; Meta-analysis; Negativity; Non-faces; Positivity

Year:  2022        PMID: 36052179      PMCID: PMC9424464          DOI: 10.1007/s10433-021-00676-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Ageing        ISSN: 1613-9372


  39 in total

1.  Aging and emotional memory: the forgettable nature of negative images for older adults.

Authors:  Susan Turk Charles; Mara Mather; Laura L Carstensen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2003-06

2.  Age-Group Differences in Interference from Young and Older Emotional Faces.

Authors:  Natalie C Ebner; Marcia K Johnson
Journal:  Cogn Emot       Date:  2010-11-01

3.  Facial expressions and complex IAPS pictures: common and differential networks.

Authors:  Jennifer C Britton; Stephan F Taylor; Keith D Sudheimer; Israel Liberzon
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-02-17       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 4.  The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11.

Authors:  Sharon Buckley; Jamie Coleman; Ian Davison; Khalid S Khan; Javier Zamora; Sadia Malick; David Morley; David Pollard; Tamasine Ashcroft; Celia Popovic; Jayne Sayers
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.650

Review 5.  Emotional aging: recent findings and future trends.

Authors:  Susanne Scheibe; Laura L Carstensen
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 4.077

6.  Preferences for emotional information in older and younger adults: a meta-analysis of memory and attention tasks.

Authors:  Nora A Murphy; Derek M Isaacowitz
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2008-06

7.  Attention modulates emotional expression processing.

Authors:  Eligiusz Wronka; Wioleta Walentowska
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 4.016

8.  Processing Distracting Non-face Emotional Images: No Evidence of an Age-Related Positivity Effect.

Authors:  Mark Madill; Janice E Murray
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-04-13

9.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2021-03-29

10.  Selective control of attention supports the positivity effect in aging.

Authors:  Laura K Sasse; Matthias Gamer; Christian Büchel; Stefanie Brassen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.