Social partners and momentary affect in the

oldest-old: The presence of others benefits affect

depending on who we are and who we are with.

Item Type Article

Authors Chui, Helena; Hoppmann, C.A.; Gerstorf, D.; Walker, R.; Luszcz,
M.A.

Citation Chui, H., Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., Walker, R. and Luszcz, M.
A., (2014) Social partners and momentary affect in the oldest-old:
The presence of others benefits affect depending on who we are
and who we are with. Developmental Psychology, 50 (3): 728-740.

DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033896

Rights © 2014 APA. “This article may not exactly replicate the final
version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record”.

Download date 01/01/2025 16:36:30

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/7158

The University of Bradford Institutional
Repository
http://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk

This work is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please
refer to the repository record for this item and our Policy Document available from
the repository home page for further information.

To see the final version of this work please visit the publisher’s website. Available
access to the published online version may require a subscription.

Author(s): Chui, H., Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., Walker, R. and Luszcz, M. A.
Title: Social partners and momentary affect in the oldest-old: the presence of
others benefits affect depending on who we are and who we are with.
Publication year: 2014
Journal title: Developmental Psychology
Link to original published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033896
Citation: Chui, H., Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., Walker, R. and Luszcz, M. A.
(2014) Social partners and momentary affect in the oldest-old: The presence of
others benefits affect depending on who we are and who we are with.
Developmental Psychology, 50 (3): 728-740.
Copyright statement: © 2014 APA. “This article may not exactly replicate the
final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record”.
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 1

Running head: SOCIAL PARTNERS AND AFFECT in the OLDEST-OLD

Social Partners and Momentary Affect in the Oldest-Old: The Presence of Others Benefits Affect

Depending on Who We Are and Who We Are With

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 2

Abstract

There are well-documented links between social relationships and emotional well-being in old

age, but little is known about daily life fluctuations in momentary affective experiences of the

oldest-old while interacting with specific social partners. We examined associations between the

presence of different types of social partners and moment-to-moment fluctuations in affect in the

oldest-old, taking into account individual differences in gender, neuroticism, depressive

symptoms, chronic health conditions, and loneliness. Participants (N = 74, M age = 88.7 years,

range = 84 - 102 years, 68% women) provided self-reports concurrently on the presence of social

partners and subjective affective states six times a day for each of seven consecutive days (3,071

occasions, in total). Relative to being with other people, time spent alone was associated with

lower positive affect in the oldest-old. Being with other family members and friends was

associated with more positive affective experiences. Compared to men, women reported more

negative affective experiences when they were with their spouses than when their spouses were

not present. Individuals with more chronic health problems reported more negative affective

experiences when they were with their spouses than not. Participants higher in neuroticism

reported more positive affective experiences when they were with their friends, compared to

times when their friends were not present. Finally, lonelier individuals reported more positive

affective experiences when they were with their spouses than not. These findings suggest that

affective experience is a function of individual differences and the type of social partners oldest-

old adults interact with in everyday life. We discuss how our findings can be generalized to

oldest-olds of different marital statuses taking into account the proportion of widows in our

sample as well as measurement specifics.

Keywords: aging, social relationship, social partners, affect, oldest-old

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 3

Social Partners and Momentary Affect in the Oldest-Old: The Presence of Others Benefits

Affect Depending on Who We Are and Who We Are With

Aspects of social relationships, such as social support and social integration, have major

implications for individuals’ physical and psychological health across the lifespan (Berkman,

Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000). However, little is known about the affective implications of

social interactions in daily life, especially in the oldest-old (Fingerman & Pitzer, 2007). The

purpose of our study was to fill this distinct gap in the literature by examining whether the

absence or the presence of different types of social partners (e.g. spouse and friends), which may

fulfill different relationship functions, are associated with concurrent momentary affective

experiences in the oldest-old. Specifically, we used up to 42 repeated daily life assessments from

74 oldest-old adults to examine concurrent associations between the presence of different types

of social partners and positive and negative affect.

The link between social relationships and psychological health is well established but the

mechanisms underlying this association are not well understood (Cohen, 2004). Fingerman and

Lang (2004) proposed a cube model to illustrate the interweaving of three dimensions in social

relationships from a lifespan perspective. The structure of social relationships concerns the types

of social partners individuals interact with, e.g. spouse and friends. The processes refer to the

underlying mechanisms of social relationships, such as motivation to engage with others. The

outcomes refer to the benefits and costs of social relationships, including satisfaction and

affective state. Research typically focuses on specific dimensions (e.g. friendships in late life) or

interactions of dimensions (e.g. affective benefits of friendships in late life). The three

dimensions and their associations change and reflect the changing life circumstances of the

individual across the lifespan. For instance, because the loss of a spouse becomes more common
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 4

in late life, the affective benefits of friendships may become more important as individuals age.

The present study focused on the structure-outcome dimensions of the cube model,

specifically, the types of social partners and how they are associated with fluctuations in affect

quality. Findings have shown that the structure of social relationships, e.g. being married, is

associated with physical and mental health outcomes in older adults (Cohen, 2004). To explain

the contribution of social relationships to affective experiences, Larson and colleagues (1986)

pointed to the important distinction between the long-term structure and contributions of social

relationships in a global time frame compared to the immediate sensations and feelings emergent

in social interactions in the present moment. For instance, having more immediate positive

affective experiences with friends was not associated with greater life satisfaction in the global

time frame. To date, a substantial body of research draws from the between-person perspective

(Nesselroade & Molenaar, 2010) and has examined the long-term structure-outcome link, e.g.

marital status and mortality (Cohen, 2004). Few studies have integrated the within-person

perspective and examined momentary affective experiences emergent from ongoing social

interactions (Larson et al., 1986). In order to provide a detailed description of the everyday life

processes and contexts influencing affective experiences in old age (Baltes, Wahl, & Schmid-

Furstoss, 1990; Nesselroade & Molenaar, 2010), the present study adopted a within-person

perspective and examined the momentary affective experiences associated with the presence of

different social partners in oldest-old adults’ daily lives.

Long-term Structure and Outcomes in Social Relationship

We first review the literature on the link between the long-term structure and outcomes in

social relationships in a global time frame. We then review the literature on the link between the

presence of social partners and affect in the present moment. A substantial body of research has
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 5

examined the long-term structure of social relationships and their associated outcomes (Cohen,

2004). Results from the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ALSA; Giles, Glonek, Luszcz,

& Andrews, 2005) showed that specific social network types differentially predicted mortality in

older adults. Having more friends was associated with lower mortality hazards over a 10-year

period, whereas no predictive effect was found for networks of children and relatives.

Furthermore, parent-adult children relationships can involve tensions and ambivalence with

consequences for well-being (Fingerman, Pitzer, Lefkowitz, Birditt, & Mroczek, 2008). Among

married older adults, spouses shape each other’s developmental trajectories of depressive

symptoms (Hoppmann, Gerstorf, & Hibbert, 2011) and well-being (Walker, Luszcz, Gerstorf, &

Hoppmann, 2011). In late life, peripheral ties such as healthcare providers, may act as substitutes

for lost spouses and are important for well-being (Fingerman, 2009). However, findings seem to

suggest that older adults tend to have negative interactions with peripheral ties. This may be due

to the tendency of healthcare providers to encourage dependency in older adults which may lead

to resentment, lowered self-esteem, and adverse health outcomes (Smith & Goodnow, 1999). It

is therefore crucial to move beyond an examination of the mere presence or absence of social

relationships in old age and embark on an investigation of how distinct types of social partners

may be differentially associated with well-being and health.

Presence of Social Partners and Momentary Affective States

Beyond the global time frame, interactions with different types of social partners are

associated with momentary variations in affect and arousal. Larson and colleagues (1986)

examined the presence of different types of social partners and the associated affect and arousal

in a seven-day experience-sampling study (median age = 68 years, range = 55 - 88 years). The

types of social partners examined included spouse, children, friends/neighbors, and other. Affect
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 6

and arousal were assessed using bipolar items (e.g. happy-sad, energetic-tired) and z-scores of

affect and arousal were used for analysis. Older adults reported neutral or below average

(relative to individuals’ own means) affect and arousal when with their children or spouses. In

contrast, they reported above average affect and arousal when with friends. Larsen and

colleagues suggested that spouse and family constitute the long-term structural properties of

social relationships, which contribute to individuals’ overall security and satisfaction. In contrast,

friends constitute the short-term process properties of social relationships, which contribute to

individuals’ momentary affective experiences. These findings were consistent with findings on

tension and ambivalence in parent-adult children relationships (Fingerman et al., 2008) and

spousal relationships in old age (Hoppmann et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2011).

To examine the momentary affective experiences associated with social interactions, the

present study extended the original cube model (Fingerman & Lang, 2004) to take into account

within-person variations in the presence of different types of social partners and associated

momentary fluctuations in affect in oldest-old adults’ daily lives. Compared to Larsen and

colleagues’ (1986) study that used a younger and mostly married (66%) sample, our sample

comprised of older (M age = 88.7 years, range = 84 - 102 years) and mostly widowed (68%)

oldest-old adults. Thus, our sample is particularly suited to examine the interactions with

peripheral ties that may substitute for the loss of spouses in the oldest-old. A second point of

difference is that we focused on affect (not arousal) and used unipolar items, instead of bipolar

items which assume unidimensionality of the affect structure. The conceptualization of a

unidimensional affect structure was timely in the 80’s, however, more recent conceptualizations

of affect assume a multi-dimensional structure and the use of unipolar items (Watson, Clark, &

Tellegen, 1988). Furthermore, we draw from the social convoy model and acknowledge that
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 7

social relationships are in part shaped by individual characteristics (Antonucci, Fiori, Birditt, &

Jackey, 2010). Thus, we examined between-person differences in the within-person variability in

affect in the presence of various types of social partners, which allows us to move towards better

understanding of affect experienced when oldest-old adults interact with others.

Social Relationships, Solitude, and Age

In general, social networks shrink with age (Lang & Carstensen, 1994) and individuals

spend increasing amounts of time alone (Larson, 1990) due to changes in the composition of

social networks (Antonucci et al., 2010) and changes in preference for particular types of social

partners (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999)1. However, being alone does not necessarily

carry negative connotations for at least two reasons. First, there is an important distinction

between solitude and loneliness. Solitude is the objective state of being alone and loneliness is

the subjective feeling of a discrepancy in the quantity or quality of social relationships one has

and those one desires (Jylhä & Saarenheimo, 2010). From adolescence to old age, being alone

becomes more common and less emotionally negative (Larson, 1990). Although loneliness is

often associated with poorer health outcomes (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010), daily experiences of

solitude have been associated with a greater sense of control in older adults (Larson, Zuzanek, &

Mannell, 1985). Second, the affective experiences associated with being alone may depend on

individual characteristics. For instance, being alone may be particularly negative for lonely

individuals because of their unfulfilled social needs (Cacioppo et al., 2000). Because being alone

becomes increasingly common with age, it is important to examine the affective experience of

the oldest-old when they are alone as well as with other people.

Individual Characteristics and Social Relationships in Old Age

Beyond within-person variations in social interactions and affect, we acknowledge the

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 8

important role of between-person differences (Antonucci et al., 2010). Gender, personality, and

health conditions have an influence on who individuals interact with and how they benefit from

their social relationships (Rook, Mavandadi, Sorkin, & Zettel, 2007). Women often have larger

social networks and tend to receive support from multiple sources, while men tend to rely on

their spouses exclusively (Antonucci et al., 2010). Older adults higher in neuroticism report

receiving less social support and are less satisfied with their social interactions (Bolger &

Zuckerman, 1995). Depressive symptoms and chronic health conditions increase with age

(Alexopoulos, 2005; Birditt & Antonucci, 2008) and both are associated with less satisfying

social interactions (Nezlek, Imbrie, & Shean, 1994), including tension and vulnerability in older

couples (Hoppmann et al., 2011). In particular, depressive symptoms are associated with mean

affect and affect variability (Ebner-Priemer & Trull, 2009). Furthermore, lonely individuals may

be particularly distressed when they are alone (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010).

The Current Study

We examined the associations between the presence of different types of social partners

and the momentary affective experiences of oldest-old adults, taking into account individual

characteristics including gender, neuroticism, depressive symptoms, chronic health conditions,

and loneliness. Although social interactions with spouses and family may be emotionally

meaningful, there is also evidence suggesting that the presence of spouses and family can be

associated with negative affective experiences in young-old adults (Larson et al., 1986). We

examined the following hypotheses. H1: We expect that the presence of spouses and family will

be associated with lower PA and higher NA in the oldest-old. H2: We expect that the presence of

friends will be associated with higher PA and lower NA in the oldest-old. H3: We expect that

being alone will be associated with lower PA and higher NA for lonely individuals, compared to
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 9

the less lonely. H4: Compared to women, the presence of spouses will be associated with higher

PA and lower NA in men. H5: Compared to individuals with lower neuroticism, higher

neuroticism will be associated with lower PA and higher NA when individuals are with others.

H6: Compared to individuals with fewer depressive symptoms and chronic health conditions, the

presence of a spouse will be associated with lower PA and higher NA in individuals with more

depressive symptoms and chronic health conditions.

Method

Participants

The ALSA Daily-Life Time-Sampling (ADuLTS) Study (Luszcz et al., 2011, November)

is an extension of the Australia Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ALSA; Luszcz et al., 2007). Out

of the 168 active ALSA participants, a subset (N = 95) was invited to take part in ADuLTS based

on three criteria: (a) vision and hearing sufficient to independently complete diaries; (b) Mini-

Mental State Examination ≥ 24 (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975); (c) overall

functioning based on a clinical assessment in the last wave of ALSA. Out of the 95 ALSA

participants, 51 were successfully recruited. Attrition analyses showed that ADuLTS participants

were positively selected, compared to the whole ALSA sample and the eligible participants who

refused to participate (n = 44)2. To increase the sample size, an additional group of community-

dwelling adults (N = 24) was recruited from multiple sources including the school of psychology

older participant pool, retirement villages, and through “snowballing.”3 A total sample of 50

women and 25 men were recruited (M age = 88.65 years, SD = 3.04, range = 83.55 – 102.40).

The participants were mostly community-dwelling (98.7%). Most participants were widowed

(68%), followed by married (25%), de facto (3%), never married (3%), and divorced (1%). Men

(44% married) and women (16% married) differed significantly in marital status, χ2 (1) = 5.51, p
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 10

< .05. Most participants (77%) were born in Australia or the United Kingdom (17%), with the

remainder from other European countries. Participants received an AUD$30 gift card as

compensation. Analyses were based on 74 individuals’ data because one participant did not

complete any within-day assessments after the baseline.

Procedure

Participants completed a baseline assessment at home with a research assistant, during

which they received instructions on completing the within-day paper diaries and on the use of an

electronic beeper that signaled when to complete them. Research assistants met the participants

again at home on Day 2 to make sure they followed the instructions without difficulties.

Participants carried the beeper for one week and completed six self-reports each day. They were

encouraged to contact the research assistant by phone if they had difficulties following the

protocol. Research assistants met the participants at home the day after the final assessment day

to collect diaries and receive feedback from participants and to debrief, thank and remunerate

them.4

On each assessment day, the first self-reports were completed shortly after waking up,

which was self-initiated. The remaining five were completed in response to a beep that occurred

at three-hourly intervals. The beeps were scheduled to minimize conflicts with participants’ daily

routines. Participants were instructed to respond to the beep as soon as possible and within two

hours. Analyses were based on the baseline data and six within-day self-reports for the seven-day

assessment period. The sample provided a total of 3,071 self-reports of the presence of social

partners and affective experiences. Overall compliance was 96%. Participants provided an

average of 40.38 (SD = 4.69) self-reports out of 42 assessment occasions (6 within-day × 7 days).

To ensure compliance with the protocol, i.e. no backfilling, participants used an electronic time
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 11

stamp to record the time that they began and finished each self-report. Participants put each self-

report into an envelope and stamped the time again across the seal.

Measures

Positive and negative affect. In each within-day assessment (not baseline), affect was

measured using nine items: happy, sad, calm, sleepy, anxious, alert, quiet, irritated, and excited

(1 = not at all; 5 = very much). These items were selected based on two criteria: (a) each

displayed considerable within-person variability in past research, and (b) together the items

covered each octant of the affective circumplex (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). Drawing from

the Circumplex Model of Emotion (Larsen & Diener, 1992), items were selected to represent

positive (happy, excited, and calm) and negative affect (sad, anxious, and irritated) based on face

validity. Instead of a homogeneous set of items (e.g. high-arousal positive: enthusiastic, excited,

strong), the items were selected to capture the wide range of valence and activation. Similar

items are commonly used in time-sampling affect research (e.g., Hoppmann & Klumb, 2006).

The heterogeneous set of items is expected to have low internal consistency but adequate

longitudinal reliability (Shrout & Lane, 2012). For internal consistency, mean Cronbach’s α

across the 42 within-day assessments was .41 (SD = .10; range = .17-.60) for PA and .67 (SD

= .12; range = .30-.82) for NA. Longitudinal reliability of PA and NA were evaluated using four

indices based on the Generalizability Theory (Cranford et al., 2006; Shrout & Lane, 2011). RKF

= .99 for PA and .99 for NA. R1R = .75 for PA and .78 for NA. RKR = .98 for PA and .98 for NA.

RC = .37 for PA and .36 for NA. The indices show moderate to excellent longitudinal reliability

for PA and NA. The moderate RC suggests that the selected items were sensitive to detecting

moment-to-moment changes in affect. Given the small sample size and limited number of items

used to reduce participant burden, the internal consistency of the 3-item PA and NA scales were
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 12

less than optimal. However, the PA and NA scales show reasonable psychometric properties in

the context of a time-sampling design (Shrout & Lane, 2012). Mean scores of PA and NA for

each assessment were calculated and used for further analyses.

Types of social interactions in daily life. At each beep, the presence of social partners

was determined by responses to the question “Who are you with?” Participants had multiple

options to check (a) service provider, (b) formal carer, (c) spouse, (d) other family member, (e)

friend, (f) other, and (g) alone. Responses were dummy-coded (0 = not present; 1 = present).

For example, when participants were with their spouse and friend, spouse = 1 and friend = 1. The

other types of social partners were coded 0. Responses to the option “alone” were also dummy-

coded (0 = not alone; 1 = alone). Participants reported being alone 71% of the time (2,171 out

of a total of 3,071 assessments). Participants were most often (17%) with their spouses, followed

by other family members (6%) and friends (3%). The presence of service providers (0.7%),

formal carers (0.03%), and other social partners (1%) were relatively infrequent, so the variable

“peripheral ties” was created by collapsing these responses together. When social partners were

present, only 5% of the time were there multiple types of social partners. Therefore, we did not

examine the interaction effect of multiple social partners, e.g. spouse × friend.

Neuroticism. Neuroticism was assessed during baseline by the 8-item Big Five Inventory

subscale (John & Srivastava, 1999), using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly; 5 =

Agree Strongly). Cronbach’s α was .74 (M = 14.51, SD = 4.97). Higher scores indicate more

emotional instability.

Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were assessed during baseline by a 10-

item short-version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D;

Andresen, Malmgren, Carter, & Patrick, 1994). Participants responded using a 4-point Likert
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 13

scale (0 = Rarely or none of the time; 4 = Most or all of the time). Cronbach’s α was .62. The

item “My sleep was restless” was dropped because Cronbach’s α was .65 with the remaining

nine items (M = 4.69, SD = 3.46). Higher scores indicate more depressive symptoms. The lower

than expected internal consistency of the CES-D is addressed as a limitation in the discussion

section.

Chronic health conditions. Chronic health conditions were assessed by responses to the

question “In the past 12 months, has a Medical Doctor ever told you that you suffer from any of

these chronic conditions” on a list of 10 medication conditions, e.g. arthritis and cancer (1 = Yes;

0 = No). The mean number of chronic health conditions was 2.43 (SD = 1.48).

Loneliness. The five-item “lonely dissatisfaction” subscale from a modified Philadelphia

Geriatric Center Morale Scale were administered (PGCMS; Lawton, 1975; Ranzijn & Luszcz,

2000). CFA analyses resulted in a poorly fit model with a negative variance. Cronbach α was .27.

Only one item, “You feel lonelier than you used to feel,” (1 = Agree; 0= Disagree) showed face

validity in the measure of loneliness and was used for further analyses (M = .30, SD = .46). The

lower than expected internal consistency of the “lonely dissatisfaction” subscale is addressed as a

limitation in the discussion section.

Covariate

Time. Time was used to control for the temporal effect of being in the study on positive

and negative affect. Individuals’ self-report of affect may change as a result of reactance and

habituation during the study (Barta, Tennen, & Litt, 2012). The duration in the study was

measured in the unit of days starting from midnight of Day 1. For example, time = .25 for an

individual who completed the first self-report on Day 1 at 6 am and time = 6.94 when an

individual completed the last self-report on Day 7 at 10:30 pm.

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 14

Statistical Analysis: Multivariate Multilevel Modeling

To examine the presence of different types of social partners and associated PA and NA,

a typical multilevel modeling analysis would entail a univariate approach. The current study took

the analyses one step further and used a multivariate multilevel modeling approach (Raudenbush

& Bryk, 2002) for its advantages over the univariate approach. First, a multivariate analysis

allows better control of the inflation of Type I error rate. Second, a multivariate approach often

has more statistical power. Third, a multivariate approach allows testing whether PA and NA are

correlated between- and within-person.

Analyses were performed using SAS PROC MIXED (SAS Institute, 2008). The basic

multivariate multilevel model can be represented in the following equations.

Level-1 model:

is the affect variable for participant i at time t. and are dummy variables.

is positive affect when = 1 and = 0. is negative affect when = 0 and

= 1. represents the residual components. The level-1 intercept is constrained to 0. Thus, for

each assessment, t, there are two affect variables, i.e. PA and NA, within participants.

Level-2 model:

represents the mean PA across participants across occasions and represents the

mean NA across participants across occasions. and are the level-2 random effects. In

subsequent models, level-1 covariates including time, status of being alone, and the presence of

types of social partners were added as level-1 interactions, e.g. . Level-2

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 15

covariates were added as cross-level interactions, e.g. .

Gender was coded -.5 = men and .5 = women. Other level-2 covariates were grand-mean

centered. Because the residuals on adjacent assessments are likely to be correlated, we specified

a first-order autoregressive error covariance structure to account for the interdependence of affect

scores of adjacent assessments within individuals.

Results

The results section is organized in four parts: (a) descriptive statistics of PA and NA, (b)

the presence of social partners, (c) the status of being alone, individual differences and the

associated PA and NA, and (d) the presence of different types of social partners, individual

differences and the associated PA and NA.

Descriptive Statistics of Positive and Negative Affect

Across six (within-day) by seven (days) assessments, mean PA was 3.16 for men (SD

= .55; range = 2.21 – 4.50) and 3.09 for women (SD = .53; range = 2.08 – 4.98). Mean NA was

1.39 for men (SD = .46; range = 1.00 – 2.61) and 1.45 for women (SD = .48; range = 1.00 – 2.70).

Women and men did not significantly differ from each other in mean PA and mean NA.

Using two basic models with no situation- or person-specific characteristics entered,

between- and within-person variability in PA and NA were examined. In Model 1, the random

effects showed that between- and within-person variances were significant for both PA

(between-person σ2 = .27, SE = .05; within-person σ2 = .23, SE = .01) and NA (between-person

σ2 = .21, SE = .04; within-person σ2 = .21, SE = .01), all ps < .001. The auto-correlation of affect

scores between adjacent occasions was also significant, AR(1) = .30, SE = .02, p < .001. In

Model 2, the effect of time was added into the model and was significant for PA, γ30 = -.02, p

< .01, but not NA, γ30 = -.01, p > .05.

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 16

Being Alone and Presence of Social Partners

Participants reported most often being alone (men = 58.8%; women = 75.7%), followed

by being with their spouses (men = 31.7%; women = 8.6%), other family (men = 3.4%; women =

7.0%), friends (men = 3.5%; women = 3.2%), and peripheral ties (men = 2.7%; women = 1.8%).

Compared to men, women reported less often being with their spouses, t(34) = 2.55, p < .05, and

more often being with other family members, t(67) = -2.05, p < .05. Women and men did not

differ in the number of occasions with other types of social partners or being alone.

Positive and Negative Affect, Being Alone, and Individual Characteristics

Table 1 presents results of two nested models. Model 3 tested the effect of being alone

with no level-2 covariates entered. Specifically, being alone was associated with a lower level of

PA, = -.10, t(63) = -2.86, p < .01. The association between being alone and NA was not

significant, = .02, t(63) = .77, p > .05. Results in Model 4 indicate that for both PA and NA,

the effect of being alone has to be interpreted in the context of significant effects of person-

specific characteristics and interactions between being alone and person-specific characteristics.

For effects of person-specific characteristics, individuals higher in neuroticism, = -.04,

t(5312) = -2.79, p < .01, and depressive symptoms, = -.04, t(5312) = -2.12, p < .05, reported

lower PA. In addition, individuals higher in loneliness reported higher NA, = .17, t(5312) =

2.28, p < .05. For interaction effects, individuals higher in neuroticism reported higher NA when

they were alone, = .01, t(5312) = 2.06, p < .05. The effects of gender and chronic health

conditions were not statistically significant for PA or NA.

Positive and Negative Affect, Social Partners, and Individual Characteristics

Table 2 presents results of two nested models. Model 5 tested the effects of the presence

of different social partners with no level-2 covariates entered. Level-2 covariates were entered in
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 17

Model 6. Models 5 and 6 are not nested within Models 3 and 4 in the previous section. The

variable “alone” is not entered in Models 5 and 6 because the status of being alone can be

predicted by the presence of social partners. Including “alone” in Models 5 and 6 when variables

indicating the presence of social partners are in the model creates multicollinearity.

In Model 5, higher PA was associated with the presence of other family members,

= .16, t(5428) = 3.96, p < .001, and friends, = .18, t(5428) = 3.52, p < .001. In addition,

lower NA was associated with the presence of friends, = -.10, t(5428) = -1.96, p < .05. The

presence of one’s spouse or peripheral ties was not associated with PA or NA. Results in Model

6 suggest that the association between the presence of social partners and affect has to be

interpreted in the context of significant effects of person-specific characteristics and interaction

effects between person-specific characteristics and the presence of social partners. Individuals

higher in neuroticism reported lower PA, = -.04, t(5388) = -3.78, p < .001, and higher NA,

= .03, t(5388) = 2.96, p < .01. Individuals higher in depressive symptoms reported lower PA,

= -.05, t(5388) = -2.89, p < .01. In addition, individuals higher in loneliness reported higher

NA, = .20, t(5388) = 2.75, p < .01. For interaction effects, women, = -.32, t(5388) = -

2.42, p < .05, and individuals with more chronic health conditions, = -.11, t(5388) = -2.30, p

< .05, reported lower PA when they were with their spouses. Individuals higher in neuroticism

reported lower NA when they were with friends, = -.03, t(5388) = -2.15, p < .05. In addition,

individuals higher in loneliness reported higher PA when they were with their spouses,

= .18, t(5388) = 2.24, p < .05.

Follow-up analyses were performed to control for possible backfilling based on the time

indicated by the electronic time stamps. Questionnaires that were not sealed with a legible time

stamp on the envelopes were classified as invalid. In addition, the time on the seal had to be
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 18

consistent with the finish time (within five minutes) on the questionnaire. Based on these criteria,

90% of all observations were classified as valid cases. Results of follow-up analyses using only

the valid observations and results based on all observations were substantially identical.

Discussion

Informed by Fingerman and Lang’s (2004) cube model, we examined the link between

the structural aspect and daily life affective experiences of social relationships. Findings showed

that momentary affect is associated with both the type of social partner present and individual

characteristics.

Being Alone and Loneliness

Consistent with previous studies, the oldest-old spent much more of their time alone

(over 70%), compared to adolescents (17%), adults (29%), young-old adults in the US (48%),

and young-old (59%) and old-old adults (62%) in Germany (Baltes et al., 1990; Klumb, 2004;

Larson, 1990). Being alone was associated with lower PA and was a particularly negative

experience for individuals higher in neuroticism. In addition, loneliness may not be eased simply

by being with others. Lonelier individuals reported higher NA in general. Yet higher PA was

observed when the spouse of lonely participants was present. Aside from limitations in statistical

power, this suggests that being with social partners other than one’s spouse may not ease the

unpleasant experience associated with loneliness. Our findings are consistent with the distinction

between solitude and loneliness (Jylhä & Saarenheimo, 2010), that being alone does not

necessarily imply loneliness and individuals may feel lonely in the presence of others (Larson,

1990).

Presence of Different Types of Social Partners

Results showed that being with friends and other family members was associated with
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 19

more positive affective experiences in general. There were several significant interaction effects.

First, when with their spouses, men, but not women, reported higher PA. Second, individuals

with fewer chronic health conditions reported higher PA when with their spouses. Third,

individuals higher in neuroticism reported lower NA when with friends. Finally, individuals

higher in loneliness reported higher PA when with their spouses. We discuss these findings in the

context of the literature on social relationship and affective experience.

This study has highlighted the importance of examining both person- and situation-

specific characteristics on momentary affect in the oldest-old. Our results suggest that whether

individuals benefit from the presence of others depends on who the individual is (person-specific

characteristics) and who they are with (situation-specific). For person-specific characteristics,

older adults bring to the social relationships a life-time of experiences which have effects on how

social partners interact with them (Fingerman & Pitzer, 2007). For situation-specific

characteristics, not all social ties are beneficial to older adults’ emotional well-being. Different

types of social partners convey distinct emotional meanings and instrumental benefits

(Carstensen et al., 1999; Rook et al., 2007). For instance, older adults tend to spend time with

their spouses and children for routine daily activities (Baltes et al., 1990; Larson et al., 1986). In

contrast, older adults tend to share leisure activities with friends, which lead to substantially

higher positive affect and arousal (Larson et al., 1986). To summarize, our findings indicate that

momentary affective experience in the oldest-old is a function of both situation- and person-

specific characteristics.

Affect in the Context of Social Partners and Individual Differences

Taking into account both situation- and person-specific characteristics, the present study

complements earlier work on social relationships in older adults in several ways. First, relative to
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 20

spouses, family, and friends, we know very little about peripheral ties in old age (Fingerman,

2009). Consistent with the social convoy model (Antonucci et al., 2010), the oldest-old adults did

not often interact with peripheral ties and being with these ties was not significantly associated

with PA or NA. Peripheral ties may be “weak ties” in terms of emotional closeness compared to

“core ties” (Fingerman, 2009). Interactions with peripheral ties are perhaps more driven by

instrumental support in terms of tangible resources, and not emotional support in terms of

companionship and emotional disclosure (Schwarzer & Leppin, 1991). Although the oldest-old

did not gain positive affective experiences from peripheral ties, their presence was not negative,

compared to the presence of one’s spouse for women and individuals with more chronic health

conditions. Findings in young-old adults show that daily interactions with spouses and family

was characterized by negative affective experiences and preoccupied with daily routines (Larson

et al., 1986). However, the present study found that only the presence of one’s spouse for

individuals of particular characteristics was associated with negative affective experiences. In

contrast, the presence of other family members was associated with positive affective

experiences. It is possible that the oldest-old shared different activities with their spouses and

other family members, compared to young-old adults. For example, although the nature of

activities engaged in with one’s spouse was not examined, it may be that they are centered

around caregiving, while interactions with other family members possibly from the younger

generations may involve more fulfilling leisure activities (Baltes et al., 1990). Future

examination of routine vs. leisure activities may explain why the presence of other family

members was associated with negative affective experiences in the young-old but not in the

oldest-old.

Second, the present study highlighted individual differences and the presence of different
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 21

types of social partners and their associated PA and NA. Women reported lower PA than men

when with their spouses. This is consistent with past findings that effects of social relationships

on health outcomes differed between men and women (Shumaker & Hill, 1991). For instance,

the effect of social support on mortality was much stronger in women than in men across age

groups. Because women are more likely than men to be support providers in old age, and

possibly more so in the oldest-old if they are still married, older women may not gain as many

positive emotional experiences when they are the primary caregivers (Shumaker & Hill, 1991).

Third, individuals with more chronic health problems reported more negative affective

experiences when with their spouses. This is consistent with past findings that being the support

recipient because of poor health may create tension with one’s spouse because s/he may perceive

the relationship as not equitable or reciprocal (Rook, 1987). In addition, the experience of

positive affect with a spouse may be undermined because of burdens of chronic illnesses.

Paradoxically, individuals with poor health are more likely to be socially isolated and not

receiving the support that they need (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). This has clinical and policy

implications such that services are needed to resolve spousal conflicts arising from care-giving in

old age (Wolff & Kasper, 2006).

Our findings showed that individuals higher in neuroticism reported less negative

affective experiences when they were with friends. Higher neuroticism is associated with

negative social interactions in general (McCrae & Costa, 2003) and interactions with spouse and

family can involve tension and ambiguity (Fingerman et al., 2008; Hoppmann et al., 2011). In

addition, individuals higher in neuroticism may be particularly uncomfortable about seeking out

less familiar people, e.g., counselors (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995), thus, friends may be the

primary source for emotional support.

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 22

Finally, lonelier individuals reported more positive momentary affective experiences

when they were with their spouses. This is consistent with past research that older adults living

with a spouse reported being less lonely than those living alone or widowed (Savikko, Routasalo,

Tilvis, Strandberg, & Pitkälä, 2005). Our findings provide partial support that individuals may

feel lonely even in the presence of others (De Jong Gierveld, Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2006). Aside

from limitations in statistical power and the relatively infrequent presence of social partners

other than one’s spouse, lonelier individuals did not experience the presence of other types of

social partners differently compared to the less lonely. Our findings suggest that being with one’s

spouse may be particularly beneficial to lonelier individuals’ affective experience. Both societal

arrangements and personal choices determine with whom and how older adults interact

(Fingerman & Lang, 2004), including whether older adults decide to (re)marry or cohabit. Most

older adults without partners live alone and the percentage of older adults living alone is rising

(Wilmoth, 1998). Although the present study did not examine the effect of living arrangement,

our findings have policy implications for the provision of social services to encourage socializing

and possibly partner-seeking in old age, to relieve the negative consequences associated with

loneliness (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2006).

Limitations and Outlook

Our findings should be considered in light of several limitations. First, our sample is

healthy and mostly community-dwelling. Attrition analyses using ADuLTS participants who

were also in ALSA revealed that ADuLTS participants were positively selected, compared to

those who either did not survive or declined to participate. The positive selection of ADuLTS

participants probably resulted in a relatively homogeneous sample, leading to underestimation of

effects and making effects harder to detect (Anstey & Luszcz, 2002). Results may not be
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 23

generalizable to oldest-old adults living in residential care where poor health and social isolation

are more common (Suzman, Willis, & Manton, 1992). In addition, we did not have details of

living arrangements, e.g. living alone or with family. Future research is needed to examine

patterns of social interactions and affect among those living in different settings.

Second, brief versions of PA, NA, and depressive symptoms were used to reduce

participant burden. Despite the reasonable psychometric properties of the PA and NA in the

context of a time-sampling design, the limited number of items and the small sample size

restricted the evaluation of the measurement properties based on the between-person

psychometric literature (Shrout & Lane, 2011). Specifically, the 3-item PA and NA measures did

not allow the examination of affect vs. arousal, or orthogonal vs. correlated factors in the present

study. Compared to PA, NA showed lower mean and less between- and within-person variance.

The fewer significant effects for NA may in part be due to floor effects5. In addition, the 10-item

CES-D and the 5-item “lonely dissatisfaction” subscale of the PGCMS did not show acceptable

internal consistency. Despite any limitations in the measures, our results were largely consistent

with past findings (Cacioppo et al., 2000; Larson et al., 1986).

Third, the present study focused on the structure of social relationships and did not

examine other aspects, such as relationship quality (Antonucci et al., 2010). The emotional

benefits from the presence of social partners may be dependent on relationship quality, which is

in part determined by whether individuals are the support provider or recipient in a social

relationship (Ingersoll-Dayton, Morgan, & Antonucci, 1997). Future research should examine

relationship quality and effects of support provider vs. recipient roles on emotional experiences

in the oldest-old. In addition, drawing from Fingerman and Lang’s (2004) cube model of social

relationships, future research may include process variables to further illuminate the underlying
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 24

emotional, motivational, and cognitive processes that link social relationship structures and

psychological outcomes. For instance, coping strategies involved in the daily interactions with

various social partners may explain why lonelier individuals have more positive affective

experiences with their spouses, whereas women and individuals with more chronic health

conditions experience more negative affective experiences with their spouses. It is possible that

lonelier individuals tend to use emotion-focused coping strategies (Lazarus, 1996) and view their

spouses as a source of companionship (Rook, 1990). In contrast, women and individuals with

more chronic health conditions may tend to use problem-focused coping strategies (Lazarus,

1996) in their interactions with their spouses, engaging in instrumental activities centered around

care-giving.

Fourth, given its age range, our sample is comprised mostly of widowed individuals and

the inclusion of widowed, married, and single individuals in our sample allows our findings to be

generalizable to the population of oldest-olds. However, it is possible that among married oldest-

old adults, patterns of social interactions are centered around their spouses’ care-giving needs.

Compared to the widowed, the presence of other family and friends may be particularly

beneficial for the married if this provides relief from care-giving demands. Future research that

oversamples married oldest-old adults is needed to examine whether the pattern of social

interactions found in our study also generalizes to them6.

The last limitation affects all time-sampling designs, i.e., effects of instrumentation and

procedures which may bias individuals’ responses (Iida, Shrout, Laurenceau, & Bolger, 2012)

and effect sizes (Snijders, 2005). The significant linear effect of time on PA possibly reflected

measurement reactivity (Barta et al., 2012). We adopted several procedures to reduce and control

for measurement reactivity. First, participants were instructed to seal the envelopes to ensure that
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 25

responses of previous self-reports were not accessible to reduce reactivity due to self-monitoring.

Second, to adjust for possible response shift, i.e., participants changing the meaning they assign

to a rating, the linear effect of time on PA and NA was controlled in the models examined. Past

research has used both time-sampling and event-sampling designs to study social partners of

older adults (Larson et al., 1985; Nezlek, Richardson, Green, & Schatten-Jones, 2002). Instead of

responding to prompts at fixed time-intervals as done herein, participants fill out self-reports as

soon as possible after a social interaction in event-sampling studies (Nezlek et al., 2002). Event-

sampling designs generate self-reports of affective reactions and evaluations targeting the social

interaction of focus. In contrast, time-sampling designs generate self-reports of affective

experiences and social interactions that occurred during the same time interval. Because affective

experiences may or may not be contingent on social interactions that were reported at the same

time, results of our correlational study warrant cautious interpretation. We cannot ascertain

whether the affective experiences reported were reactions to the presence of social partners or

other intervening events. Future time-sampling studies may test lead-lag effects to examine the

causal and cumulative effects of social interactions on affective experiences. In addition, the

present study used fixed intervals and compared to results of a time-sampling study using

random intervals (Klumb, 2004), our sample of oldest-olds reported spending more time alone

(71%) than did the sample of older adults (M age = 80.6 years; 62% of the time alone). Our

participants might have picked beep schedules that sampled times when they were likely to be

alone. Future studies using random time-sampling intervals will be needed to ascertain whether

the age difference in time spent alone is due to differences in the fixed vs. random time-sampling

schedule.

Consistent with similar time-sampling studies on momentary affect in old age (e.g.,
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 26

Charles et al., 2010), effect sizes of our findings are small. Small effect sizes are expected in

time-sampling studies compared to laboratory-based studies where variables of interests are

manipulated and effects of other variables are controlled. The strength of a time-sampling design

is that the phenomenon of interest is examined as it unfolds in the natural environment, thus

ecological validity is enhanced. Unlike laboratory-based studies, however, our study cannot

control for all other factors that may impact fluctuations in affect. Thus, both time-sampling and

laboratory-based studies are needed to provide a comprehensive picture of affective experiences

in late life. In addition, intervention studies examining the effect of friendship and caregiver

support programs are needed to explore the practical significance of our findings on affective

experiences.

Conclusion

This study shows that the presence of various types of social partners is differentially

associated with momentary affective experiences of oldest-old adults. Although social

relationships play an important role in oldest-old adults’ well-being, it is not the case that the

presence of all social partners is associated with positive affective experiences. Owing to

heterogeneity among individuals, they differ in how much they benefit emotionally in the

presence of various social partners. Our findings attest to the value of including both person- and

situation-specific characteristics to delineate the association between social relationships and

well-being in the oldest-old. Future research may substantiate our findings by examining

underlying relationship-specific characteristics, such as daily activities performed alone and with

social partners. In summary, our findings extend the literature by showcasing the dynamic and

diverse affective experiences linked to social partners of oldest-old adults.

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 27

References

Alexopoulos, G. S. (2005). Depression in the elderly. The Lancet, 365(9475), 1961-1970. doi:

10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66665-2

Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Screening for

depression in well older adults - Evaluation of a short-form of the CES-D. American

Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 77-84.

Anstey, K. J., & Luszcz, M. A. (2002). Selective non-response to clinical assessment in the

longitudinal study of aging: Implications for estimating population levels of cognitive

function and dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 704-709. doi:

10.1002/gps.651

Antonucci, T. C., Fiori, K. L., Birditt, K., & Jackey, L. M. H. (2010). Convoys of social relations:

Integrating life-span and life-course perspectives. In M. E. Lamb & A. M. Freund (Eds.),

The Handbook of Life-Span Development (Vol. 2: Social and Emotional Development, pp.

434-473). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Baltes, M. M., Wahl, H.-W., & Schmid-Furstoss, U. (1990). The daily life of elderly Germans:

Activity patterns, personal control, and functional health. Journal of Gerontology, 45(4),

P173-P179. doi: 10.1093/geronj/45.4.P173

Barta, W. D., Tennen, H., & Litt, M. D. (2012). Measurement reactivity in diary research. In M.

R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp.

108-123). New York: Guilford.

Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health:

Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 843-857. doi:

10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00065-4
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 28

Birditt, K., & Antonucci, T. C. (2008). Life sustaining irritations? Relationship quality and

mortality in the context of chronic illness. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1291-1299.

doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.029

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.

Cacioppo, J. T., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H., McClintock, M. K., Malarkey, W. B., Hawkley, L.

C., . . . Berntson, G. G. (2000). Lonely traits and concomitant physiological processes:

The MacArthur social neuroscience studies. International Journal of Psychophysiology,

35, 143-154. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8760(99)00049-5

Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of

socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181. doi: 10.1037/0003-

066X.54.3.165

Charles, S. T., Luong, G., Almeida, D. M., Ryff, C., Sturm, M., & Love, G. (2010). Fewer ups

and downs: Daily stressors mediate age differences in negative affect. The Journals of

Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B, 279-286. doi:

10.1093/geronb/gbq002

Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676-684. doi:

10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676

Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for

evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies

detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917-929. doi:

10.1177/0146167206287721
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 29

De Jong Gierveld, J., Tilburg, T. V., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Loneliness and social isolation. In

A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp.

485-500). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Trull, T. J. (2009). Ecological momentary assessment of mood

disorders and mood dysregulation. Psychological Assessment, 21, 463-475. doi:

10.1037/a0017075

Fingerman, K. L. (2009). Consequential strangers and peripheral ties: The importance of

unimportant relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 69-86. doi:

10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00010.x

Fingerman, K. L., & Lang, F. R. (2004). Coming together: A perspective on relationships across

the life span. In F. R. Lang & K. L. Fingerman (Eds.), Growing together: Personal

relationships across the life span (pp. 1-13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Fingerman, K. L., & Pitzer, L. (2007). Socialization in old age. In P. D. Hastings & J. E. Grusec

(Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 232-255). New York: Guilford.

Fingerman, K. L., Pitzer, L., Lefkowitz, E. S., Birditt, K. S., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Ambivalent

relationship qualities between adults and their parents: Implications for the well-being of

both parties. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63B,

P362-P371.

Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). "Mini-mental state": A practical

method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric

Research, 12, 189-198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 30

Giles, L. C., Glonek, G. F. V., Luszcz, M. A., & Andrews, G. R. (2005). Effect of social

networks on 10 year survival in very old Australians: the Australian longitudinal study of

aging. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 574-579. doi:

10.1136/jech.2004.025429

Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical

review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218-227.

doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8

Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., & Hibbert, A. (2011). Spousal associations between functional

limitation and depressive symptom trajectories: Longitudinal findings from the Study of

Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD). Health Psychology, 30,

153-162. doi: 10.1037/a0022094

Hoppmann, C. A., & Klumb, P. L. (2006). Daily goal pursuits predict cortisol secretion and

mood states in employed parents with preschool children. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68(6),

887-894. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000238232.46870.f1

Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2012). Using diary methods in

psychological research. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D.

Rindskopf & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 1:

Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 277-305). Washington, DC,

US: American Psychological Association.

Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Morgan, D., & Antonucci, T. (1997). The effects of positive and negative

social exchanges on aging adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 52, S190-

S199.
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 31

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:

Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.

Jylhä, M., & Saarenheimo, M. (2010). Loneliness and ageing: Comparative perspectives. In D.

Dannefer & C. Phillipson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social gerontology (pp. 317-

328). London, UK: SAGE.

Klumb, P. L. (2004). Benefits from productive and consumptive activities: Results from the

Berlin Aging Study. Social Indicators Research, 67, 107-127.

Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emotional relationships in late life: Further

support for proactive aging in the social domain. Psychology and Aging, 9, 315-324.

Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. F. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of

emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion: Review of personality and social psychology (pp.

25-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Larson, R. W. (1990). The solitary side of life: An examination of the time people spend alone

from childhood to old age. Developmental Review, 10, 155-183. doi: 10.1016/0273-

2297(90)90008-r

Larson, R. W., Mannell, R., & Zuzanek, J. (1986). Daily well-being of older adults with friends

and family. Psychology and Aging, 1, 117-126.

Larson, R. W., Zuzanek, J., & Mannell, R. (1985). Being alone versus being with people:

Disengagement in the daily experience of older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 375-

381. doi: 10.1093/geronj/40.3.375

Lawton, M. P. (1975). The Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: A revision. Journal of

Gerontology, 30, 85-89. doi: 10.1093/geronj/30.1.85

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 32

Lazarus, R. S. (1996). The role of coping in the emotions and how coping changes over the life

course. In C. Magai & S. H. McFadden (Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult development,

and aging (pp. 289-306). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Luszcz, M. A., Giles, L., Eckermann, S., Edwards, P. A., Browne-Yung, K., & Hayles, C. (2007).

The Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing: 15 years of ageing in South Australia (pp.

130). Retrieved from http://www.flinders.edu.au/sabs/fcas-

files/Documents/StudyOfAgeing.pdf

Luszcz, M. A., Hoppmann, C., Gerstorf, D., Walker, R., Edwards, P., & Hunter, M. (2011,

November). A week in the lives of oldest-old Australians: Initial findings from ADuLTS

measurement burst study. Poster session presented at The Gerontological Society of

America’s 64th Annual Scientific Meeting. Boston, US.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory

perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2010). Emphasizing intraindividual variability in the

study of development over the life span: Concepts and issues. In W. F. Overton (Ed.),

Handbook of life-Span development: Cognition, biology, and methods (Vol. 1, pp. 30-54).

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Nezlek, J. B., Imbrie, M., & Shean, G. D. (1994). Depression and everyday social interaction.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1101-1111.

Nezlek, J. B., Richardson, D. S., Green, L. R., & Schatten-Jones, E. C. (2002). Psychological

well-being and day-to-day social interaction among older adults. Personal Relationships,

9, 57-71. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00004

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 33

Ranzijn, R., & Luszcz, M. (2000). Measurement of subjective quality of life of elders.

International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 50, 263-278.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rook, K. S. (1987). Reciprocity of social exchange and social satisfaction among older women.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 145-154.

Rook, K. S. (1990). Social relationships as a source of companionship: Implications for older

adults' psychological well-being. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason & G. R. Pierce (Eds.),

Social support: An interactional view (pp. 219-250). Oxford, England: Wiley.

Rook, K. S., Mavandadi, S., Sorkin, D. H., & Zettel, L. A. (2007). Optimizing social

relationships as a resource for health and well-being in later life. In C. M. Aldwin, C. L.

Park & A. Spiro (Eds.), Psychology of health psychology and aging (pp. 267-285). New

York: Guilford.

SAS Institute. (2008). SAS 9.2. Cary, NC.

Savikko, N., Routasalo, P., Tilvis, R. S., Strandberg, T. E., & Pitkälä, K. H. (2005). Predictors

and subjective causes of loneliness in an aged population. Archives of Gerontology and

Geriatrics, 41, 223-233. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2005.03.002

Schwarzer, R., & Leppin, A. (1991). Social support and health: A theoretical and empirical

overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 99-127. doi:

10.1177/0265407591081005

Shrout, P. E., & Lane, S. P. (2011). Psychometrics. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.),

Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 302-320). New York: Guilford.
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 34

Shrout, P. E., & Lane, S. P. (2012). Reliability. In H. Copper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T.

Panter, D. Rindskopf & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in

psychology (Vol. 1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics, pp. 643-660).

Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Shumaker, S. A., & Hill, D. R. (1991). Gender differences in social support and physical health.

Health Psychology, 10, 102-111.

Smith, J., & Goodnow, J. J. (1999). Unasked-for support and unsolicited advice: age and the

quality of social experience. Psychology and Aging, 14, 108-121.

Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. In B. S. Everitt &

D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 3, pp. 1570-

1573). Chicester: Wiley.

Suzman, R. M., Willis, D. P., & Manton, K. G. (Eds.). (1992). The oldest old. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288-307. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288

Walker, R., Luszcz, M., Gerstorf, D., & Hoppmann, C. (2011). Subjective well-being dynamics

in couples from the Australian Longitudinal Study of Aging. Gerontology, 57, 153-160.

doi: 10.1159/000318633

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Wilmoth, J. M. (1998). Living arrangement transitions among America's older adults. The

Gerontologist, 38, 434-444.

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 35

Wolff, J. L., & Kasper, J. D. (2006). Caregivers of frail elders: Updating a national profile. The

Gerontologist, 46, 344-356. doi: 10.1093/geront/46.3.344

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 36

Footnotes
1
We recognize that the Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST) is valuable in the

interpretation and prediction of affective experiences in relation to social partners from the

lifespan perspective. However, we decided not to rely on SST because testing propositions from

the SST requires making use of future time perspective, which was not available in our study.
2
Attrition analyses showed that participants who took part in ADuLTS were positively

selected, among all ALSA participants. Using data from ALSA (waves 1, 3, 6, 9, and 11),

ADuLTS participants were younger, better educated, having better cognitive functioning, self-

rated health, and functional health, and lower depressive symptoms, compared to those who

either did not survive or refused to take part in ADuLTS. Effects of sample selectivity was

primarily due to mortality rather than drop-out for other reasons such as refusal to participate

(Luszcz et al., 2011, November). Using data from ALSA Wave 11 (2010), among the 95 ALSA

participants eligible to take part in ADuLTS, those who declined to participate (n = 44) were

significantly different from those who participated (n = 51) in age and free recall. ADuLTS

participants were significantly younger, t(92) = -2.12, p < .05, (M = 88.55 years, SD = 2.57 vs.

M = 89.81 years, SD = 3.19) and scored higher in free recall, t(93) = 2.55, p < .01, (M = 7.18, SD

= 1.51, vs. M = 6.27, SD = 1.81) than those who refused to participate. They did not differ from

each other in scores of attention and calculation, recall, cued recall, and Mini Mental State

Examination.
3
The ALSA participants and the additional group from the community did not differ

significantly from each other in the variables of interest, including age (ALSA group: M = 89.04,

SD = 2.50, community group: M = 88.02, SD = 3.83, t(32.70) = 1.19, p > .05), gender (ALSA

group: 64% women; community group: 71% women, χ2 (1) = .10, p > .05), neuroticism (ALSA
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 37

group: M = 14.60, SD = 4.79, community group: M = 14.33, SD = 5.43, t(40.74) = .21, p > .05),

depressive symptoms (ALSA group: M = 4.99, SD = 11.63, community group: M = 4.06, SD =

12.60, t(43.86) = 1.06, p > .05), chronic health conditions (ALSA group: M = 2.22, SD = 2.13,

community group: M = 2.75, SD = 2.02, t(46.60) = -1.49, p > .05), and loneliness (ALSA group:

27% agree, community group: 38% agree, χ2 (1) = .37, p > .05).
4
Participants provided feedback by answering four questions (1 = not at all; 5 = very

much): (a) “Do you think that the alarm was loud enough?”, M = 3.86, SD = 1.34; (b) “Did the

people around you react negatively when you completed the questionnaires?”, M = 1.27, SD

= .75; (c) “To what extent did the questionnaire completion interfere with your daily routines?”,

M = 2.49, SD = 1.22; and (d) “Did your response to the questions result in you changing your

behaviour?”, M = 1.48, SD = .94. Participants’ feedback was positive overall.

5
Major findings from additional analyses using individual items (‘happy’ and ‘sad’ for

high face validity) were substantively identical to those reported in the main text.
6
Additional analyses were performed to further examine results of Model 6, using a

subsample of participants who were either married or in a de facto relationship (n = 21, 28% of

the whole sample; total number of observations = 808). Results related to the presence of spouse

were substantially identical with those reported herein, except that the interaction effect of

Spouse × Lonely on PA, = .11, t(1523) = 1.35, p > .05, became non-significant, and the

interaction effect of Spouse × Neuroticism on PA, = .03, t(1523) = 2.52, p < .05, became

significant. These effects are still in the same direction as in the original analyses. This

convergent evidence indicates that the effects related to the presence of spouse are relatively

solid although this is not true for the loneliness findings. However, we caution against over-

interpreting results of the additional analyses due to the very small sample size.
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 38

Table 1

Multilevel Model Results of Situation-Specific (Being Alone vs. Not) and Person-Specific

Characteristics on Positive and Negative Affect

Model 3 Model 4

95% CI 95% CI

Fixed effects γ (SE) Lower Upper γ (SE) Lower Upper

PA, γ10 3.22(.07)*** 3.09 3.35 3.24(.06)*** 3.12 3.36

NA, γ20 1.44(.06)*** 1.33 1.55 1.44(.05)*** 1.33 1.55

PA × Time, γ30 -.02(.01)** -.03 -.01 -.02(.01)** -.03 -.01

NA × Time, γ40 -.01(.01) -.02 .003 -.01(.01) -.02 .003

PA × Alone, γ50 -.10(.03)** -.17 -.03 -.09(.04)* -.16 -.01

NA × Alone, γ60 .02(.03) -.04 .09 .002(.03) -.06 .06

PA × Gender, γ70 -- -- -- -.08(.12) -.31 .16

NA × Gender, γ80 -- -- -- -.05(.10) -.25 .16

PA × Neuro, γ90 -- -- -- -.04(.01)** -.06 -.01

NA × Neuro, γ100 -- -- -- .02(.01) -.004 .04

PA × CES-D, γ110 -- -- -- -.04(.02)* -.08 -.003

NA × CES-D, γ120 -- -- -- .01(.02) -.02 .04

PA × Chronic, γ130 -- -- -- -.03(.04) -.11 .05

NA × Chronic, γ140 -- -- -- -.02(.04) -.09 .05

PA × Loneliness, γ150 -- -- -- .05(.09) -.12 .22

NA × Loneliness, γ160 -- -- -- .17(.08)* .02 .32

PA × Alone × Gender, γ170 -- -- -- -.04(.07) -.19 .10

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 39

NA × Alone × Gender, γ180 -- -- -- .10(.06) -.02 .23

PA × Alone × Neuro, γ190 -- -- -- -.004(.01) -.02 .01

NA × Alone × Neuro, γ200 -- -- -- .01(.01)* .001 .03

PA × Alone × CES-D, γ210 -- -- -- -.01(.01) -.03 .01

NA × Alone × CES-D, γ220 -- -- -- .01(.01) -.01 .03

PA × Alone × Chronic, γ230 -- -- -- .01(.03) -.04 .06

NA × Alone × Chronic, γ240 -- -- -- -.01(.02) -.05 .03

PA × Alone × Lonely, γ250 -- -- -- -.05(.05) -.15 .05

NA × Alone × Lonely, γ260 -- -- -- .03(.04) -.06 .12

Goodness-of-fit

Deviance 7095.2 7039.4

AIC 7135.2 7119.4

BIC 7181.3 7211.5

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01 ***p < .001.

SE = standard error; Neuro = Neuroticism; Chronic = Chronic health conditions; AR(1) = First-

order auto-regression; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

Gender was coded -.5 = men and .5 = women. CES-D, neuroticism, chronic health conditions,

and loneliness were grand-mean centered.

Results of random effects were not shown for simplicity. Results of random effects can be

provided upon request.

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 40

Table 2

Multilevel Model Results of Situation-Specific (Being with Different Social Partners) and

Person-Specific Characteristics on Positive and Negative Affect

Model 5 Model 6

95% CI 95% CI

Fixed effects γ (SE) Lower Upper γ (SE) Lower Upper

PA, γ10 3.14(.07)*** 3.01 3.27 3.15(.06)*** 3.03 3.26

NA, γ20 1.45(.06)*** 1.34 1.57 1.44(.05)*** 1.34 1.55

PA × Time, γ30 -.02(.01)*** -.03 -.01 -.02(.01)** -.03 -.01

NA × Time, γ40 -.01(.01) -.02 .003 -.01(.01) -.02 .003

PA × Spouse, γ50 .002(.05) -.10 .10 -.04(.06) -.16 .08

NA × Spouse, γ60 -.03(.05) -.12 .07 .02(.06) -.10 .14

PA × Other family, γ70 .16(.04)*** .08 .24 .13(.05)** .04 .23

NA × Other family, γ80 .05(.04) -.03 .12 .04(.05) -.05 .13

PA × Friend, γ90 .18(.05)*** .08 .27 .17(.07)* .04 .30

NA × Friend, γ100 -.10(.05)* -.19 -.0001 -.13(.07)* -.26 -.001

PA × Peripheral ties, γ110 .02(.06) -.10 .14 -.02(.07) -.16 .12

NA × Peripheral ties, γ120 .05(.06) -.07 .17 .06(.07) -.08 .20

PA × Gender, γ130 -- -- -- -.08(.11) -.30 .14

NA × Gender, γ140 -- -- -- .06(.10) -.14 .26

PA × Neuro, γ150 -- -- -- -.04(.01)*** -.06 -.02

NA × Neuro, γ160 -- -- -- .03(.01)** .01 .05

PA × CES-D, γ170 -- -- -- -.05(.02)** -.09 -.02

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 41

NA × CES-D, γ180 -- -- -- .02(.02) -.01 .05

PA × Chronic, γ190 -- -- -- -.01(.04) -.08 .06

NA × Chronic, γ200 -- -- -- -.04(.03) -.10 .03

PA × Lonely, γ210 -- -- -- -.02(.08) -.17 .14

NA × Lonely, γ220 -- -- -- .20(.07)** .06 .34

PA × Spouse × Gender, γ230 -- -- -- -.32(.13)* -.58 -.06

NA × Spouse × Gender, γ240 -- -- -- -.01(.13) -.26 .25

PA × Other family × Gender, γ250 -- -- -- .09(.10) -.10 .28

NA × Other family × Gender, γ260 -- -- -- .0004(.09) -.18 .18

PA × Friend × Gender, γ270 -- -- -- .04(.12) -.20 .28

NA × Friend × Gender, γ280 -- -- -- -.12(.12) -.36 .11

PA × Peripheral ties × Gender, γ290 -- -- -- -.19(.14) -.46 .08

NA × Peripheral ties × Gender, γ300 -- -- -- -.01(.13) -.27 .25

PA × Spouse × Neuro, γ310 -- -- -- .02(.01) -3.00E-05 .05

NA × Spouse × Neuro, γ320 -- -- -- -.01(.01) -.04 .01

PA × Other family × Neuro, γ330 -- -- -- -.004(.01) -.02 .01

NA × Other family × Neuro, γ340 -- -- -- .001(.01) -.02 .02

PA × Friend × Neuro, γ350 -- -- -- .02(.01) -.01 .05

NA × Friend × Neuro, γ360 -- -- -- -.03(.01)* -.06 -.003

PA × Peripheral ties × Neuro, γ370 -- -- -- .02(.01) -.01 .04

NA × Peripheral ties × Neuro, γ380 -- -- -- .01(.01) -.02 .04

PA × Spouse × CES-D, γ390 -- -- -- -.001(.02) -.03 .03

NA × Spouse × CES-D, γ400 -- -- -- .02(.02) -.02 .05

Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 42

PA × Other family × CES-D, γ410 -- -- -- .03(.01) -.0005 .05

NA × Other family × CES-D, γ420 -- -- -- -.02(.01) -.05 .002

PA × Friend × CES-D, γ430 -- -- -- -.01(.02) -.04 .03

NA × Friend × CES-D, γ440 -- -- -- -.03(.02) -.06 .002

PA × Peripheral ties × CES-D, γ450 -- -- -- .01(.03) -.04 .06

NA × Peripheral ties × CES-D, γ460 -- -- -- -.001(.03) -.05 .05

PA × Spouse × Chronic, γ470 -- -- -- -.11(.05)* -.20 -.02

NA × Spouse × Chronic, γ480 -- -- -- .06(.04) -.02 .15

PA × Other family × Chronic, γ490 -- -- -- .06(.03) -.01 .13

NA × Other family × Chronic, γ500 -- -- -- -.05(.03) -.12 .01

PA × Friend × Chronic, γ510 -- -- -- -.01(.04) -.09 .08

NA × Friend × Chronic, γ520 -- -- -- .002(.04) -.08 .09

PA × Peripheral ties × Chronic, γ530 -- -- -- .04(.04) -.03 .12

NA × Peripheral ties × Chronic, γ540 -- -- -- -.002(.04) -.07 .07

PA × Spouse × Lonely, γ550 -- -- -- .18(.08)* .02 .34

NA × Spouse × Lonely, γ560 -- -- -- -.05(.08) -.20 .11

PA × Other family × Lonely, γ570 -- -- -- .04(.06) -.08 .16

NA × Other family × Lonely, γ580 -- -- -- -.06(.06) -.18 .05

PA × Friend × Lonely, γ590 -- -- -- -.07(.10) -.26 .12

NA × Friend × Lonely, γ600 -- -- -- .08(.09) -.10 .27

PA × Peripheral ties × Lonely, γ610 -- -- -- .01(.12) -.22 .25

NA × Peripheral ties × Lonely, γ620 -- -- -- -.09(.12) -.33 .14

Goodness-of-fit
Social Partners and Affect in the Oldest-Old 43

Deviance 7084.7 6963.3

AIC 7122.7 7101.3

BIC 7166.5 7260.2

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01 ***p < .001.

SE = standard error; Neuro = Neuroticism; Chronic = Chronic health conditions; AR(1) = First-

order auto-regression; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

Gender was coded -.5 = men and .5 = women. CES-D, neuroticism, chronic health conditions,

and loneliness were grand-mean centered.

Results of random effects were not shown for simplicity. Results of random effects can be

provided upon request.