哪个更能预测长寿?生活满意度还是人生目标?

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY
Psychology and Aging Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1037/pag0000802
Frank Martela, Elmeri Laitinen, Christian Hakulinen
{"title":"哪个更能预测长寿?生活满意度还是人生目标?","authors":"Frank Martela, Elmeri Laitinen, Christian Hakulinen","doi":"10.1037/pag0000802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Life satisfaction and purpose in life are fundamental yet separate ways to evaluate one's life. Both positively predict physical health and longevity, making them key factors for length and quality of life. However, we do not know which of them predicts mortality, when controlling for the influence of each other. Given that purpose in life involves a more active engagement with life and can help to cope with suffering, we hypothesize that purpose in life could be a more direct prospective predictor of longevity, overshadowing any effect of life satisfaction, when the two are pitted against each other as prospective predictors of longevity. To examine these hypotheses, we utilized Midlife in the U.S. survey, which is a 23-year follow-up study, (<i>N</i> = 5,993) and Cox proportional hazards models, repeating the analyses both without covariates and when controlling for various demographic and health-related variables. We show that both life satisfaction and purpose in life predict mortality when modeled separately. When life satisfaction, purpose in life and self-rated health were entered as simultaneous predictors of mortality, purpose in life remained a slightly more robust predictor of mortality, while life satisfaction became only marginally significant, suggesting that some of the factors that connect it to mortality are covered by the other two subjective evaluations. Overall, the results demonstrate that purpose in life is a robust predictor of mortality, and thus a key dimension of well-being to attend to as people age, while the predictive power of life satisfaction is more dependent on the choice of covariates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48426,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Aging","volume":" ","pages":"589-598"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which predicts longevity better: Satisfaction with life or purpose in life?\",\"authors\":\"Frank Martela, Elmeri Laitinen, Christian Hakulinen\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pag0000802\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Life satisfaction and purpose in life are fundamental yet separate ways to evaluate one's life. Both positively predict physical health and longevity, making them key factors for length and quality of life. However, we do not know which of them predicts mortality, when controlling for the influence of each other. Given that purpose in life involves a more active engagement with life and can help to cope with suffering, we hypothesize that purpose in life could be a more direct prospective predictor of longevity, overshadowing any effect of life satisfaction, when the two are pitted against each other as prospective predictors of longevity. To examine these hypotheses, we utilized Midlife in the U.S. survey, which is a 23-year follow-up study, (<i>N</i> = 5,993) and Cox proportional hazards models, repeating the analyses both without covariates and when controlling for various demographic and health-related variables. We show that both life satisfaction and purpose in life predict mortality when modeled separately. When life satisfaction, purpose in life and self-rated health were entered as simultaneous predictors of mortality, purpose in life remained a slightly more robust predictor of mortality, while life satisfaction became only marginally significant, suggesting that some of the factors that connect it to mortality are covered by the other two subjective evaluations. Overall, the results demonstrate that purpose in life is a robust predictor of mortality, and thus a key dimension of well-being to attend to as people age, while the predictive power of life satisfaction is more dependent on the choice of covariates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology and Aging\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"589-598\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"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/pag0000802\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Aging","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000802","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生活满意度和人生目标是评价一个人生活的基本但又不同的方式。两者都能积极预测身体健康和长寿,是决定生命长度和质量的关键因素。然而,我们并不知道在控制两者相互影响的情况下,哪一个能预测死亡率。鉴于生活目的涉及更积极地参与生活,并有助于应对痛苦,我们假设,当生活目的和生活满意度作为长寿的前瞻性预测因素相互对立时,生活目的可能是更直接的长寿前瞻性预测因素,其作用会盖过生活满意度。为了检验这些假设,我们利用了美国中年调查(一项为期 23 年的跟踪研究)(N = 5993)和 Cox 比例危险模型,在不考虑协变量以及控制各种人口和健康相关变量的情况下重复进行了分析。我们的研究表明,如果将生活满意度和生活目的分别建模,它们都能预测死亡率。当生活满意度、生活目的和自评健康同时作为死亡率的预测因子时,生活目的仍然是死亡率的一个略微稳健的预测因子,而生活满意度仅有轻微的显著性,这表明生活满意度与死亡率相关的一些因素已被其他两个主观评价所涵盖。总之,研究结果表明,生活目标是预测死亡率的有力指标,因此也是随着人们年龄的增长而需要关注的幸福感的一个关键维度,而生活满意度的预测能力则更多地取决于协变量的选择。(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。
Which predicts longevity better: Satisfaction with life or purpose in life?

Life satisfaction and purpose in life are fundamental yet separate ways to evaluate one's life. Both positively predict physical health and longevity, making them key factors for length and quality of life. However, we do not know which of them predicts mortality, when controlling for the influence of each other. Given that purpose in life involves a more active engagement with life and can help to cope with suffering, we hypothesize that purpose in life could be a more direct prospective predictor of longevity, overshadowing any effect of life satisfaction, when the two are pitted against each other as prospective predictors of longevity. To examine these hypotheses, we utilized Midlife in the U.S. survey, which is a 23-year follow-up study, (N = 5,993) and Cox proportional hazards models, repeating the analyses both without covariates and when controlling for various demographic and health-related variables. We show that both life satisfaction and purpose in life predict mortality when modeled separately. When life satisfaction, purpose in life and self-rated health were entered as simultaneous predictors of mortality, purpose in life remained a slightly more robust predictor of mortality, while life satisfaction became only marginally significant, suggesting that some of the factors that connect it to mortality are covered by the other two subjective evaluations. Overall, the results demonstrate that purpose in life is a robust predictor of mortality, and thus a key dimension of well-being to attend to as people age, while the predictive power of life satisfaction is more dependent on the choice of covariates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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