Younger and Older Adults’ Aging Well Construals: A Quantitative Word Use and Topics Comparison

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Individuals' construals of aging capture how they think of aging, and what aging well means to them. Assessing such construals is important for understanding attitudes toward aging and, ultimately, how to tailor personalized aging well interventions to an individual. METHODS: We analyzed 100 younger adults (YAs)' and 92 older adults (OAs)' spoken narratives of what aging well means to them using two language analysis approaches, closed-vocabulary, word count analysis via Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and open-vocabulary, word co-occurrence analysis via topic modeling. RESULTS: YAs' and OAs' spoken narratives differed in both word and topic use. YAs used more words related to physical aspects, more tentative language, and expressed themselves via higher status language (clout), while OAs used authentic language, i-talk, and words related to work, home, family, and religion. Topic modeling complemented the LIWC analyses and showed that YAs primarily discussed topics of bodily and cognitive decline and strategies of preventing aging, conveying concerns about, and negative stereotypes of aging. OAs topicalized family reflections, openness to new experiences, and their social engagement, signaling a more positive outlook on (continued) aging. CONCLUSION: Our complimentary word count and word co-occurrence language analyses of aging well construals revealed stark differences between YAs' and OAs' perceptions of aging well, which raise important questions about intergenerational exchanges and communications about aging more broadly. Further, we found that aging construals of OAs are useful for estimating their future outlook, an important aspect of resilience against cognitive decline and possible entry point for targeted precision aging interventions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.