The coping, appraisal, and resilience in aging (CARA) model: Longitudinal findings from the Normative Aging Study.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY
Carolyn Aldwin, Soyoung Choun, Avron Spiro
{"title":"The coping, appraisal, and resilience in aging (CARA) model: Longitudinal findings from the Normative Aging Study.","authors":"Carolyn Aldwin, Soyoung Choun, Avron Spiro","doi":"10.1037/pag0000863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Resilience is central to understanding how individuals withstand the adverse effects of stress, but there is no generally agreed-upon definition of what constitutes resilience in later life. The present study tests the coping, appraisal, and resilience in aging model, which posits that resilient older adults, when faced with a problem, can draw upon their lifelong experience to minimize coping effort to conserve resources but still maintain a sense of coping efficacy (perceptions of how well they had handled the specific problem). We assessed coping effort and efficacy in 896 men in the Veterans' Affairs Normative Aging Study (Mage in 1993 = 64.46, SD = 6.6, range = 50-89) who were followed for 24 years (1993-2016), providing 3,459 observations. Multilevel modeling showed that coping effort decreased significantly, but coping efficacy showed only modest decreases with age. Group-based multitrajectory models indicated three groups. Struggling Copers (22.4%) had low, stable coping effort and efficacy. Modest Decliners (36.9%) had moderate levels of coping effort and high efficacy, both of which decreased with age. Optimal Copers (40.7%) had initially high coping effort, which declined more steeply, and stable, high coping efficacy. Struggling Copers were highest on neuroticism and pessimism at baseline, while Modest Decliners were lowest on neuroticism and highest on extraversion. The complex pattern of results suggested that both resource conservation and decreasing perceived control models were applicable, but to different subgroups. Nonetheless, nearly 80% of the sample were able to sustain high levels of coping efficacy, indicating good resilience in later life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48426,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Aging","volume":"39 8","pages":"884-896"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Aging","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000863","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Resilience is central to understanding how individuals withstand the adverse effects of stress, but there is no generally agreed-upon definition of what constitutes resilience in later life. The present study tests the coping, appraisal, and resilience in aging model, which posits that resilient older adults, when faced with a problem, can draw upon their lifelong experience to minimize coping effort to conserve resources but still maintain a sense of coping efficacy (perceptions of how well they had handled the specific problem). We assessed coping effort and efficacy in 896 men in the Veterans' Affairs Normative Aging Study (Mage in 1993 = 64.46, SD = 6.6, range = 50-89) who were followed for 24 years (1993-2016), providing 3,459 observations. Multilevel modeling showed that coping effort decreased significantly, but coping efficacy showed only modest decreases with age. Group-based multitrajectory models indicated three groups. Struggling Copers (22.4%) had low, stable coping effort and efficacy. Modest Decliners (36.9%) had moderate levels of coping effort and high efficacy, both of which decreased with age. Optimal Copers (40.7%) had initially high coping effort, which declined more steeply, and stable, high coping efficacy. Struggling Copers were highest on neuroticism and pessimism at baseline, while Modest Decliners were lowest on neuroticism and highest on extraversion. The complex pattern of results suggested that both resource conservation and decreasing perceived control models were applicable, but to different subgroups. Nonetheless, nearly 80% of the sample were able to sustain high levels of coping efficacy, indicating good resilience in later life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

抗逆力对于理解个人如何抵御压力的不利影响至关重要,但对于什么是晚年抗逆力却没有一个普遍认同的定义。本研究对老龄化中的应对、评估和复原力模型进行了测试,该模型认为,具有复原力的老年人在遇到问题时,可以利用其毕生经验最大限度地减少应对努力,以节省资源,但仍能保持应对效能感(对自己处理具体问题的能力的感知)。我们对退伍军人事务正常老龄化研究中的 896 名男性(1993 年年龄 = 64.46,SD = 6.6,范围 = 50-89)的应对努力和效能进行了评估,对他们进行了长达 24 年(1993-2016 年)的跟踪调查,共观察到 3,459 人。多层次模型显示,随着年龄的增长,应对努力显著下降,但应对效能仅略有下降。基于群体的多轨迹模型显示出三个群体。挣扎应对者(22.4%)的应对努力和效能较低且稳定。中度衰退者(36.9%)具有中等水平的应对努力和较高的效能,两者都随着年龄的增长而下降。最佳应对者(40.7%)最初的应对努力较高,但下降幅度较大,应对效能稳定且较高。挣扎型应对者的神经质和悲观程度在基线时最高,而温和型应对者的神经质最低,外向性最高。复杂的结果模式表明,资源保护模式和感知控制能力下降模式都适用于不同的亚群体。尽管如此,近 80% 的样本仍能保持较高的应对效能,这表明他们在晚年具有良好的复原能力。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
10.80%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychology and Aging publishes original articles on adult development and aging. Such original articles include reports of research that may be applied, biobehavioral, clinical, educational, experimental (laboratory, field, or naturalistic studies), methodological, or psychosocial. Although the emphasis is on original research investigations, occasional theoretical analyses of research issues, practical clinical problems, or policy may appear, as well as critical reviews of a content area in adult development and aging. Clinical case studies that have theoretical significance are also appropriate. Brief reports are acceptable with the author"s agreement not to submit a full report to another journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信