INT’L. J. AGING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 25(2), 1987

COGNITIVE AGE: A NEW MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO MEASURING AGE IDENTITY

BENNY BARAK, PH.D. Ho fstra University

ABSTRACT

An exploratory field study was undertaken to explore the way in which age-concepts are experienced, and to assess the relationship of age identities to each other. In addition, this study seeks to establish a new multidimensional age scale, Cognitive Age, to replace the well-established standard scale, Identity Age. This research also functions as a follow-up to an exploration by Kastenbaum ef al. of “ages-of-me.” Ths most frequently used subjective age measures, Identity Age and Feel/Age, are unidimensional, and thus very difficult to evaluate in terms of reliability and/or validity. A multidimensional view of age as reflected by Personal Age is very appealing, but complex to assess. Cognitive Age successfully merges Identity Age, in which respondents identify with age-referrent groupings, and Personal Age, in which respondents rate themselves in terms of four functional age dimensions. The resultant Cognitive Age scale is both reliable and valid.

INTRODUCTION

All living organisms on our planet share the phenomenon of aging. Human age assessment has been dominated by one measure, Chronological Age, which reflects number of years passed since birth. Aging, howe er, is not necessarily a

that one’s age is not totally bound to chronological time constraints and orientations. Nonchronological aspects of the aging process form the various dimensions of functional age [ 11.

with a disparate approach. The result has been the development of various operationalizations. Biologists and physicians study Physiological Age [2] ; sociologists are interested in functional age factors such as Social Age [3] ;

unidimensional process. “Younger” and “older” are relati - yt e terms-implying

Functional age has been studied by researchers from diverse disciplines, each

109

0 1987. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/RR3M-VQT0-B9LL-GQDMhttp://baywood.com

110 / BENNYBARAK

gerontologists have paid special attention over the last twenty-five years to Identity Age [4, 51 and Feel/Age [4-61; psychosocial gerontologists have measured Personal and Interpersonal Age [7] ; and the consumer behavior discipline has appraised nonchronological age determinations such as Cognitive Age [8-111.

SE LF-CONCEPTS

Kastenbaum and Durkee point out that “if there is no single, dominant way in which old age is defined at present, then there is something to be learned from the particular way in which an individual interprets the term” [ 12, p. 2.511. Subjectively-experienced aging reflects this individual interpretation of the aging process. It depends not only on the passage of time-chronological age-but also on age-roles perceived to be appropriate or desired at certain chronological ages or age decades. Use of role models to assess self-perception is a principal component of the self-concept theory [ 13-1 51. Age-role self-concepts are measured by a process in which individuals identify themselves with age-referents from a perceived age identity-role perspective [4-12, 16, 171.

ACTUAL AGE-ROLE SE L F-CONCEPTS

Most subjective age research is concerned with measuring age-role self- concepts, henceforth referred to as age-concepts. These measurements focus on age dimensions of actual self, such as perception of self in terms of completing the statement “I am really like someone who is -X- years old” [ 13-15]. As a rule, age researchers assess age-concepts with measures such as Identity Age [4, 51, Feel/Age [4-61, Personal Age [7], and Cognitive Age [8-111.

Identity Age

scale operationalizes subjective age by having subjects identify themselves with age-referent groups such as “young,” “middle-aged,” and “old” [4, 5, 16, 171 (see also Appendix A). Identity Age research clearly falls within the self-concept theory, but even within this theoretical context, the scale has problems. In addition to being unidimensional in nature, this scale suffers from some confusion regarding the start and/or end of middle age. As Borland points out, most age researchers have “operationally defined middle age arbitrarily by certain age limits alone, the range being from 30 to 70 years of age” [18, p. 3831. Moreover, substantial research indicates that individuals, in particular those chronologically over thirty, deny their own aging; Americans cling tenaciously to perceptions of themselves as “young and middle-aged” even when they are chronologically in their seventies and eighties [4-6, 17, 181 .

Identity Age is the standard, and most popular, gerontological age-scale. The

COGNITIVE AGE / 111

Feel /Age

Feel/Age is typically gauged by researchers asking straightforward questions such as “How old do you feel?” [4, p. 701, or “What age do you feel on the inside?” [ 6 , p. 181. Unlike Identity Age, this form of subjective age is readily expressed in numerical years, and allows easy comparison to Chronological Age. This approach to subjective age measurement precepitates many questions: On what basis is an answer given? How reliable is this unidimensional age measure? How well do Feel/Age scales measure an individual’s age-concept? Which Feel/Age scale is the best?

Personal Age

Kastenbaum and associates proposed consideration of a special form of subjectively-experienced functional age, Personal Age [7]. They explored this concept with the aid of a structured interview format, a forty-nine-item interview schedule designated as “The Ages of Me.” Personal Age reflects “the individual’s self-report of his age status: how old he seems to hhse l f ” relative to Chronological Age [7, p. 2001. This age-role status is assessed in terms of four functional age dimensions:

1. Feel/Age-the age a person feels; 2. Look/Age-the age a person thinks she or he looks; 3. Do/Age-the age a person perceives him/her self to act; and 4. Interest/Age-the age a person perceives to be reflective of his/her interests.

Cognitive Age

Barak, aided by Kastenbaum et al.’s conceptualization of Personal Age [7], developed a new age scale, Cognitive Age [8]. Respondents indicate the specific age-referent groups they most identify with, the ones they feel they really belong to. This identification enables assessment of the individual’s age-concept. The Cognitive Age scale is similar to Identity Age in its reliance on age-group referral to determine an individual’s age-concept. But there the similarity ends. The age-referent groups utilized are not amorphous: respondents identify with specific chronological age decades. Moreover, the scale is numerical, expressed in years, and a measure of subjectively-experienced age roles in terms of the four Personal Age dimensions-Feel/Age, Look/Age, Do/Age, and Interest/Age- as originally conceived by Kastenbaum [8,9] (see also Appendix A). Although multidimensional, Cognitive Age is a fairly simple survey scale to administer: it does not rely on a complex interview schedule. Scoring is based on an average of the four dimensions (see Appendix A). In summary, Cognitive Age reflects an individual’s age-concept expressed in years, based upon the functional age dimensions of Feel/Age, Look/Age, Do/Age, and Interest/Age, in an easily answered format.

112 I BENNY BARAK

Self-perceived Age Research

Research on self-perceived age using the various measures of age-concept has a rich twenty-year history. All of those who studied age-concepts on any scale reported a marked link between self-concept and Chronological Age. An individual’s self-concept tends to be younger than his/her Chronological Age, for respondents do not generally identify with their chronological-age cohorts [4-11, 19-21]. A low self-perceived age is typically associated with positive self-image, that is, a person’s sense of psychological well-being, self-confidence, and innovativeness [4, 8, 10, 19-24]. In addition, factors such as higher levels of education, income, employment, and good health often lead to a respondent’s younger perceived age [4,5, 8, 19,20,23-251.

IDEAL AGE-CONCEPTS

Ideal Age

Surprisingly, Ideal or Desired Age-the age an individual considers to be ideal-has received little attention from age researchers. Such a measure could be extremely relevant in the assessment of age-identity, since ideal self is a major self-imagery dimension.

variables. Those who have considered the concept report that among adults Ideal Age tends to be younger than Chronological [ l o , 221 and Cognitive Age [ lo ] . Due to the sparsity of Ideal Age research, there are few known correlates of this age measure. These few deal with “family variables” such as age of father [22], household size, and number of offspring [ l o ] .

I

Not much is yet known about Ideal Age and how it relates to other

ATTITUDES TOWARDS AGE IDENTITY

Discrepancy Age

Determination of both actual and ideal age-concepts creates yet another dimension: Discrepancy Age [ lo ] . Discrepancy between the actual and the ideal self is a measure of self-esteem, as well as an attitude reflecting “conscious judgment regarding the relationship of one’s actual self to the ideal or other self” [15, p. 2871. Discrepancy Age is the difference between actual and ideal age- concepts; as such it assesses the way one feels about his/her age role. A low Discrepancy Age implies a positive age-self attitude since an individual considers him/herself close to the ideal age. This interpretation is supported by Barak and Gould’s finding that two other attitude measures-Morale and Disparity Age- were closely associated with Discrepancy Age [ lo ] .

COGNITIVEAGE / 113

Morale Age A neglected age factor is Morale Age,~similar to Discrepancy Age, which

reflects an individual’s happiness with his/her actual age. Discrepancy Age measures an individual’s feelings about his/her age identity, while Morale Age assesses the level of satisfaction with personal age status in general.

Measures of morale have an established gerontological research history and form a component of subjective well-being research: Morale and various forms of subjective age are inversely related, in that the higher the morale, the younger an individual’s perceived age generally is [4, 8, 10, 24,251. Mutran and Burke developed an Old/Age Role/Identity scale to measure the significance of happiness and control over one’s life relative to age [25]. According to that study, a higher old age identification implies a greater dissatisfaction with life. Morale Age, operationalized as a four-item subscale of the LSI-Z life-satisfaction scale [26], and determined with the aid of rotated factor analysis (see Appendix A), is also inversely related to Cognitive Age: the higher the morale, the lower a respondent’s Cognitive Age [8, 101.

into the “denial of aging” phenomenon. This notion is reinforced by Bultena and Powers’ contention that rejection of one’s own chronological cohorts through espousal of a younger identity implies a positive age-concept [ 171 .

These findings indicate that both Discrepancy and Morale Age provide insight

OBJECTIVE AGE

Chronological Age Surely, Chronological Age is more than a few spins on the earth’s axis.

Chronology is a constant in our lives. The most dramatic example of the pervasiveness of the measure of Chronological Age is the use of this objective measurement by our government. For example, the government decides the Chronological Age at which an American may get married without parental permission, drink alcohol, enter the armed forces, and receive Social Security benefits. However, the experience of age and the accompanying shifts in age identity are a multidimensional process only partially determined by chronological age.

Progeny Age

In the United States a person’s Family Life Cycle is mainly determined by two demographic variables: marital status and Chronological Age. The way one experiences age is greatly influenced by one’s immediate family, particularly by the age of offspring. Progeny Age emphasizes the impact of chronology: few elements in an individual’s life provide more evidence of the passage of time than grown children, grandchildren, and aging parents.

114 I BENNY BARAK

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE AGE

Youth Age

Research on the interaction of objective and subjective age is not new: there is a long tradition of studies on youthfulness and comparative age identification [4, 5, 10, 15, 16, 20-231. Some researchers, in an effort to interpret terms such as “younger” and “older,” argue that this type of age assessment falls outside the self-concept paradigm. Within that particular framework, objective reality is only utilized to determine the major dimensions such as actual and ideal self [14, 151. Measures such as Youth Age, the discrepancy between Chronological and Cognitive Age [ 101 ; Youthfulness, the discrepancy between Chronological Age and Feel/Age [ 6 ] ; and Comparative Age, answers to “Would you say you feel older or younger than most people your age? ” [23], employ both objective and subjective realities.

Disparity Age

Disparity Age, the discrepancy between Chronological and Ideal Age [ 101 , reflects longing for an Ideal Age; as such, it is another measure of acceptance or rejection of one’s age-role. It is similar to Youth Age, and likewise outside the traditional scope of self-concept theory. Yet, unlike Youth Age, it is very close to Morale Age [ 101. In addition, Disparity Age and Discrepancy Age are highly related and have basically the same correlates [ 101.

THE STUDY

An exploratory field study was designed to investigate and assess:

1. the subjective experience of age-identities (age-concepts); 2. how the various “ages-of-me” measures interrelate; and 3. Cognitive Age’s capacity to replace the standard Identity Age scale.

Self-report questionnaires were filled out by 500 women, all residents of the New York metropolitan area. An age quota sampling procedure was used to ensure respondents chronologically thirty-nine and younger, and forty and over. Respondents were not aware that the real focus of the study was age measurement (see Appendix A). They assumed that they were participating in an academic survey of life styles, leisure time activities, and consumer behavior. To quality for this age identity study, one had to be female, chronologically between thirty and sixty-nine, and a respondent to all questions forming the Cognitive Age scale. After screening, 422 respondents remained in the study population. Table 1 illustrates the demographic profile of this sample; Tables 2 through 4 provide data about distributions of the various age measures.

COGNITIVEAGE / 115

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Sample Population

(N) Percent (N) Percent

Marital Status Married Living with lover SeparatedIDivorced Widowed Single (never married) NO reiponse

Liberal Moderate Conservative Radical No response

Health Status Excellent Good so-so Bad

Pol i tical Ph i losoph y

Educational level

Grade School High School College Graduate School

Attendedlfinished:

No response

228 18 71 24 77 4

75 1 56 109 7 75

102 250 68 2

12 160 171 77 2

Primary Occupation in Life Professional (doctor, lawyer) 81

Executive (proprietor, manager) 70

Ski I led worker (mechanic, baker ) 16

Clerical and Sales (secretary, seller) 160

Service Worker (police, stewardess) 32

Housewife 51 No response 12

54 6 17 6 18 -

22 45 31 2 -

24 59 16 1

3 38 40 10

-

-

20

17

4

39

8 12 -

Household Size 0 ne Two Th ree-four Five and more No response

Religion Protestant Catholic Jewish Other No response

Ethnic Background White Black Hispanic Oriental No response

70 112 158 68 4

66 196 100 33 27

312 45 38 15 12

Employment Outside the Home Not employed outside the home 69

Part-time employed 67 Full-time employed 279 No response 7

17 27 39 17 -

17 50 25 8 -

76 1 1 9 4 -

17 16 67 -

Personal (Individual) Income Level Under $10,000 88 23 $1 0.000-$19,999 153 40 $20,000-$29,999 95 25

$50,000 and higher 10 3 $30,000-$49,999 39 10

No response 37 -

Tabl

e 2.

Ag

e D

ecad

e D

istr

ibut

ions

of

Sam

ple

Pop

ulat

ion

(N =

422

)

A A m

Age

Dec

ades

M

ean

Age

P

erce

nt

Age

Mea

sure

s Ti:

P

re-1

0 10

s 20

s 30

s 40

s 50s

60s

70s

80s

Cog

nitiv

e A

ge

Feel

IAge

Lo

okIA

ge

DoI

Age

In

tere

st/A

ge

36.6

0.

0 0.

0 21

.1

44.7

23

.3

9.3

1.7

0.0

0.2

36.3

0.

2 2.

4 26

.8

38.4

22

.3

7.6

1.9

0.2

0.2

36.5

0.

2 2.

8 29

.1

33.2

21

.6

10.7

1.

9 0.

2 0.

2 36

.4

0.0

2.1

25.6

40

.8

21.6

8.

3 0.

9 0.

2 0.

5 37

.2

0.0

1.7

19.4

45

.5

23.0

9.

5 0.

7 0.

0 0.

2

Idea

l Age

33

.6

0.5

1.7

21.1

49

.5

22.7

4.

3 0.

2 0.

0 0.

0

Chr

onol

ogic

al A

ge

42.3

0.

0 0.

0 0.

0 45

.3

26.5

24

.2

4.0

0.0

0.0

Chr

onol

ogic

al P

roge

ny A

ges

You

nges

t Chi

ld (

N=2

70)

16.8

21

.1

37.8

32

.6

7.4

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Old

est C

hild

(N

=270

) 21

.7

11.9

24

.4

42.6

16

.7

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

You

nges

t Gra

ndch

ild (N

=82)

3.

6 89

.0

11.0

0.

0 0.

0 0.

0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Old

est G

rand

child

(N=8

2)

8.1

65.9

26

.8

7.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

COGNITIVEAGE / 117

Table 3. Age-Concept Distributions

Identity Age Groupings

Cognitive Age Groupings

Percent Percent

Young MiddleAged lN=2061 IN= 1961

Under 40 40 Plus (N=2771 (N=1451

Cognitive Age Groupings Twenties 36.6 Thirties 57.6 Fourties 5.4 Fifties 0.5 Sixties 0.0

Chronological Age Groupings Thirties 77.7 Fou rties 14.1 Fifties 7.8 Sixties 0.5

Ideal Age Groupings Preteens 0.0 Teens 1 .o Twenties 26.2 Thirties 56.3 Fourties 15.0 Fifties 1.5 Sixties 0.0

Discrepancy Age Groupings Discrepancy Age < 0 50.5 0 < Discrep Age < 10 46.1 Discrepancy Age > 10 3.4

3.6 35.2 44.4 15.8 1 .o

12.2 42.3 40.3

5.1

0.5 2.0

15.3 44.9 31.6

5.6 0.0

22.4 48.5 29.1

Identity Age Groupings Very young 2.2 Young 69.9 Middle age 27.5 Elderly 0.4 Old 0.0

Chronological Age Groupings Thirties 67.5 Fou r t i es 25.6 Fifties 6.5 Sixties 0.4

Ideal Age Groupings Preteens 0.4 Teens 1.4 Twenties 25.3 Thirties 54.9 Fourties 16.2 Fifties 1.8 Sixties 0.0

Discrepancy Age Groupings Discrepancy Age < 0 50.5 0 < Discrep Age < 10 45.1 Discrepancy Age > 10 4.3

0.0 9.1

83.9 7.0 0.0

2.8 28.3 57.9 11 .o

0.7 2.1

13.1 39.3 35.2 9.0 0.7

8.3 50.3 41.4

R ESU LTS

Reliability

Cognitive and Morale Age, the multiple-item age scales in the study (see Appendix A), were assessed for internal stability. The procedure utilized, SPSS- RELIABILITY, showed these scales to be internally consistant and stable: the respective ALPHA coefficients were .91 for Cognitive Age, and .53 for Morale Age. Barak had previously also investigated Cognitive Age’s reliability, in a population chronologically fifty-five to ninety, and found the scale internally stable with an ALPHA coefficient of .86 [8] . In addition, Barak also reported a test-retest reliability estimate of .88 for the Cognitive Age scale, this &timate was based on a small sample reassessed over a three-week period [8].

118 I BENNY BARAK

Table 4. Expressed Agreement Between Chronological Age-Decades and Subjective Age Dimensions

Chronological Age Decades

Mean Percent

30s 40s 50s 60s Agreement (N) (N=191) (N=l12) (N=102) (N=17) (N=422)

Identity Age Very young 6 Young 206 M iddl e-Age 196 Elderly 14

Cognitive Age 422 FeelIAge 422 LookIAge 422 DoIAge 422 InterestIAge 422

Ideal Age 422

Discrepancy Age ( < O ) 152 ( > O a n d < l O ) 198 (>lo) 72

3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.2 25.9 16.0 5.9 12.6 74.1 79.0 58.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 35.3

54.2 36.6 29.4 29.4 37.4 38.7 33.9 25.5 29.4 31.9 31.4 35.7 35.3 29.4 33.0 46.1 29.5 21.6 11.8 27.3 56.0 39.3 29.4 17.6 35.6

52.4 26.8 12.7 0.0 23.0

56.0 25.9 15.7 0.0 39.8 56.3 53.9 23.5 4.2 17.9 30.4 76.5

Directionality

Table 4 shows that a vast majority (87.4%) of those chronologically in their thirties view themselves as “young or very young.” An even larger percentage (95.2%) of this age range saw themselves as younger than forty (i.e., Cognitive Age < 40). When we consider those who indicated identification with “middle-age,” a Chronological Age of forty and over is common (87.7%). Moreover, a Cognitive Age of forty and over implied a Chronological Age that was also greater than forty (97.276, see Table 3).

chronological age of thirty [ 181. Table 3 clearly illustrates that in the 1980s the perception of self as “young” is common to those chronologically under forty! Moreover, even among the forty and over population a sizable proportion

These findings rebut Borland’s contention that middle age starts at a

COGNITIVEAGE / 119

perceive themselves as “young.” This “young” age identification is reflected by the finding that at least one out of four respondents (25.6%, see Table 3) with a Cognitive Age under forty was chronologically in her forties.

tendency to reject Chronological Age. This denial of age phenomenon is reflected in the nature of age-patterns shown by Tables 2 through 4. These age- patterns, including those for Feel/Age, Look/Age, Do/Age, and Interest/Age, are similar to those observed by all who studied subjective age vis-a-vis Chronological Age [49].

(49.5%) of the study population view an age in the thirties as ideal. Only 2 1.1 percent considered the twenties an Ideal Age, notwithstanding a long standing tendency of the American media and advertising establishment to portray the “young” twenties as the most desirable age category. Table 3 summarizes the Ideal Age of those who see themselves as “young”; 56.3 percent consider an age in the thirties ideal. A high proportion (44.9%) of those with a “middle-age’’ identity also view the thirties as desirable. Table 3 affirms that regardless of their Cognitive Age, respondents perceive an age in the thirties as ideal.

“young” or “under forty”-feel greater satisfaction with their age-role. Discrepancy Age also increases with advancing Chronological Age (see Table 4).

In general, these data, like all previous perceived age research, show a strong

Table 2 also indicates that regardless of Chronological Age almost half

Table 3 also shows that individuals with the lowest Discrepancy Age-those

Correlational Analysis

this study are continuous in nature and expressed in years. When continuous variables are correlated, the appropriate analytical procedure is PEARSON analysis; POINT BI-SERIAL analysis is utilized to correlate categorical and continuous measures [27]. Since the POINT BI-SERIAL procedure requires modification of categorical scales into dummy variables, Identity Age was determined by ascribing respondents who identified themselves as either “young” or “middle-aged” with a score of 0 and 1 respectively (see Appendix A). Respondents who did not show identification with either of these two age categories, 6 percent of the study sample, were not included in the POINT BI-SERIAL analysis.

Table 5 illustrates the correlations between age-concept measures and the other age-scales. Only significant (p < .OS) correlations are shown in this Table.

Table 5 shows the interrelationship between the various age measures and identities. These correlations affirm the face-validity of the age determinations. Of particular interest is the negative correlation between Discrepancy Age and Morale Age. The findings confirm that a low Discrepancy Age reflects satisfaction with a specific age, while a high Morale Age indicates happiness with one’s age-status in general.

Except for Identity Age, which is a categorical age measure, all scales used in

120 I BENNYBARAK

Table 5. Age-Concept Correlationsa

Identity Cognitive Ideal Discrepancy

(N=402) (N=422) (N=422) (N=422) Age Age Age Age

(N) (rl (r) (r) (r)

Identity Ageb

Cognitive Age Feel /Age LookIAge DoIAge InterestIAge

Ideal Age

Discrepancy Age Morale Age

Youth Age Disparity Age

Chronological Age

Chronological Progeny Ages Youngest Child’s Age Oldest Child‘s Age Youngest Grandchild’s Age Oldest Grandchild’s Age

402

422 422 422 422 422

422

422 422

422 422

422

270 2 70 82 82

1.00

.60

.54

.58

.46

.51

.21

.37 -.lo

.12

.43

.64

.48

.52

1.00 .90 .92 .87 .87

.27

.70 -.12

-.29 .50

.75

.56

.61

.26

.39

.27

.26

.I8

.24

1 .oo

-.49

-.47

.27

.26

.26

.64

.66

.68

.64

1 .oo -.17

-.28 .80

.48

.28

.32

.33

a All correlations shown are significant (p < .05). When r shown > .12, thenp < .01,

b Other then with Identity Age all correlations shown are based on PEARSON analyses. and with r > .I6 level of significance isp < .001 (the greater number of correlations).

Identity Age is categorical and therefore modified into a dummy variable (young = 0; middle-aged = 1) to allow POINT BI-SERIAL correlational analysis [251.

Validity

Since Identity and Cognitive Age both assess similar age-concepts, they both should correlate similarly with other age measures. In order to evaluate the Cognitive Age scale as a replacement of the Identity Age scale, the parallels between the two must be gauged. To this end, a differential significance analysis-based on the f-test procedure suggested by Cohen and Cohen [27] - was conducted. This particular f-test determines the correlations between two dependent variables, such as Identity Age and Cognitive Age, with a set of independent variables and assesses the correlations’ differences. Only

COGNITIVEAGE I 121

Table 6. Differential Significance Analysisa (Comparison of Dependent Variable Correlations)

Identityb Cognitive‘ Age Age Significant

(N) (rl lrl t- Valued Difference

Identity Age 402 Cognitive Age 402

Ideal Age 402

Morale Age 402 Disparity Age 402

Chronological Age 402 Youngest Child’s Age 258 Oldest Child‘s Age 258

1 .oooo .5961 1 .oooo

.2128 .2175 .lo76

-. 1037 -. 1008 .0649

.4340 .5081 1.9474

.6417 .7272 2.9859 X

.4794 .5199 1.0874

.5288 .5623 .0702

a Based on Cohen and Cohen‘s r-test [25, pp. 53-54], This r-test assesses if Cognitive Age correlates to a significant ( p < -05) greater degree with independently determined age measures than does Identity Age.

b Identity Age correlations were determined with POINT BI-SERIAL analysis [25], requiring modification of Identity Age into a dummy variable (young = 0 and middle-age = 1; with N=402).

respondents who identified selves as either young or middle-aged when responding to the Identity Age measure).

1.972, correlations (r) compared are significantly ( p < .05) different [251. Only Chronological Age had correlations differing in strength with the two dependent age variables.

‘ Cognitive Age correlations were determined with PEARSON analysis (N=402,

d Degrees-of-Freedom = (n - 3). I f t-value (d.f. = 399) > 1.966, or f-value (d.f. = 255) >

independent age variables were selected. Youth Age, for example, could not be included in the test since its scoring depends on Cognitive Age.

Chronological Age, none of the independent measures differed in terms of their correlations with either of the age-concepts.

Grandchildren’s ages were not considered in this t-test since Identity Age showed no correlation with these Progeny Ages, probably because respondents with grandchildren tended to be chronologically older and thus more likely to perceive of themselves as “middle-aged.”

Since Identity Age is unidimensional, it cannot be used to determine the construct-validity of the Cognitive Age scale. Nevertheless, the differential analysis with the t-test provides a limited form of construct-validity for the Cognitive Age measure.

The results, shown in Table 6, indicate that with the exception of

122 I BENNYBARAK

While the present study did not focus on non-age variables, Barak et al. report that Cognitive Age possesses the same correlates as Identity Age [4, 8-10]. In addition, Table 5 shows that Cognitive Age is associated in a predictable pattern with all age measures considered in the present study, which lends further credence to Cognitive Age’s predictive validity.

All of the data shown in Tables 2 through 6 indicate that Cognitive Age functions as an age-dimension through its many significant relationships with other age-identities: thus, additional face-validity is provided for this new measure.

a valid and reliable multidimensional scale of age-concept, capable of replacing the standard Identity Age scale.

These findings lead to the conclusion that the Cognitive Age scale seems to be

D I SC U SS I ON

This study was a follow-up to Kastenbaum e l aZ.’s original work with “ages-of-me” [ 7 ] . The present data base relied on a substantial population sample-N = 422-of women chronologically thirty to sixty nine. However, this sample was neither nationwide nor random: it replicates neither the United States population at large, nor even the New York metropolitan population. Therefore, although the study population is demographically well represented (see Table l), follow-up studies are needed to confirm present exploratory findings. Even so, it is worth noting that most findings relating to patterns of age were similar to those reported in prior age research (e.g., [4-81).

Overall, the study succeeded in evaluating the subjective experience of age and assessing the interrelationship among the various “ages-of-me” (see Tables 2 through 5). An additional goal of the study, evaluation of Cognitive Age’s capacity to replace Identity Age as a measure of age-concept, was also attained. Results of the t-test (see Table 6), as well as the determination of reliability and validity for Cognitive Age corroborated this capacity.

Six major points need reinforcement:

1. The bias toward a youthful Cognitive Age was just as strong in this study as in that of Kastenbaum and associates in their “ages-of-me” study for Personal Age [7].

2. Denial-of- Age increases with advancing Chronological Age. The higher the Chronological Age, the lower the expressed agreement between Chronological and Cognitive Age (see Table 4), similar to findings for Personal Age [7].

3. Denial-of-age is also confirmed by the age patterns for Discrepancy Age- higher levels of Discrepancy Age are noticeable with advancing Chronological Age (Table 4). In addition, the inverse correlation between Discrepancy and Morale Age (r = -.17; see Table 5) in which Morale Age

COGNITIVEAGE / 123

goes up as Discrepancy Age decreases, indicates diminished happiness with one’s age-role as a concomitant of advancing Chronological Age.

4. A wide variance is observed for Cognitive Age; however, Ideal Age tends to be clustered around the mid-thirties. More than 100 respondents indicated age thirty-five as their Ideal Age, regardless of respondents’ Chronological Age.

5 . Unlike data procured in the ages-of-me study, present data indicate that how old a woman “looks” and how old she “feels,” both from her own frame of reference, does nor represent two appreciably different aspects of Cognitive Age. The high internal stability of Cognitive Age, an ALPHA coefficient of .91, illustrates how tightly knit the four functional age dimensions of Feel/Age, Look/Age, Do/Age, and Interest/Age are. These four age dimensions do not seem to differ a great deal relative to Identity and/or Discrepancy Age (Table 5) . Only in the instance of Ideal Age relationships is there a noticeable difference: that is, a lower correlation between Do/Age and Ideal Age (Table 4).

respondents chronologically forty to fifty-nine, while Interest/Age and Chronological Age are closest among respondents thirty to thirty-nine (see Table 4). Respondents chronologically in their thirties expressed the greatest amount of agreement (56.W0) with Interest/Age. Future research will have to pay special attention to this phenomenon.

6. Look/Age and Chronological Age are particularly congruent among

This exploratory study shows that age is experienced in various ways; the domain of functional age is certainly a rich one, open to continued research in many disciplines. Future investigations are needed to provide more information and insight as to the interpretation and applications of nonchronological age.

APPENDIX A

The Study’s Age Measures

I. IDENTITY AGE, Operational Definition: An individual’s self-perceived (subjective) age expressed

in terms of age-referent groups such as: “young,” and “middle-aged.” A measure of actual age-role self-concept.

Scale: In your view, which of the following descriptive age-categories fits you most? Very Young- Young Middle Age __ Elderly - Old __

Scoring: Those identifying with “young” receive a score of 0, while those who identify with “middle-age” receive a score of 1.

124 I BENNYBARAK

11. COGNITIVE AGE AND ITS DIMENSIONS.

Operational Definition: Cognitive Age is a person’s self-perceived (subjective) age based upon his/her ages-of-me (Feel/Age, Look/Age, Do/Age, and Interest/Age) as determined by age-decade reference groups. It is a form of Personal Age [ 71 expressed in years (with 2.5 year intervals); the scale measures actual age-role self-concept.

Scale: Please specify which of these age decades you FEEL you really belong to: preteens, teens, twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, or eighties.

1. I FEEL as though I

2. I LOOK as though I

3. I DO most things as though I were in my - - - - - - - - -

4. My INTERESTS are mostly those of a

Preteens Teens 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s

am in my ................... - - - - - - - - -

am in my.. ................. - - - - - - - - - ...

person in his/her - - - __ - - - - - ........ Scoring: Feel/Age, Look/Age, Do/Age, and Interest/Age are independently

scored through the midpoints of each age-decade (preteens, teens, 20s, 30s, etc.) a respondent identifies with. T o illustrate, an individual who

with 30s, receives a score of 35 years for Feel/Age. The Cognitive Age score is computed through a simple average of the four age dimension scores:

responds to the Feel/Age statement “I FEEL as though I am in my . . . ”

COGNITIVE AGE = (FEEL/AGE + LOOK/AGE + DO/AGE + INTEREST/AGE) / 4.

A non-response to any of the four age dimensions eliminates a respondent from the data analysis.

111. IDEAL AGE.

Operational Definition: The age an individual perceives to be ideal; a measure of ideal age-role self-concept expressed in number of years.

Scale: What do you consider to be a person’s IDEAL age? __years.

Scoring: The number of years indicated in response to the scale question.

IV. DISCREPANCY AGE.

Operational Definition: The discrepancy between actual and ideal age-role self- concepts expressed in number of years. Discrepancy Age evaluates how one feels about his/her age-self concept.

COGNITIVEAGE I 125

Scoring: Computation of the discrepancy between Cognitive and Ideal Age.

After this computation, three Discrepancy Age levels are established: DISCREPANCY AGE = COGNITIVE AGE - IDEAL AGE.

Low + discrepancy age < 0 Medium + 0 > discrepancy age < 10 High + discrepancy age > 10.

V. MORALE AGE.

Operational Definition: A measure of a person's satisfaction with their age status. Morale Age, an age-role self-concept measure, assesses an individual's perception of his/her age experience.

Scale: (Scale determined through rotated factor analysis of a seventy-eight Likert-item inventory).

As I grow older things seem better than I thought they would be. ......................... - - -

I am just as happy as when I was younger. ... - - - These are the best years of my life. ........... - - - The things I do are as interesting to me as

they ever were. ................................... __ __ -

Agree Uncertain Disagree

Scoring: Each item receives an independent score as follows:

Morale Age is determined through summation of scores for the four items.

Agree = +1 ; Uncertain = 0 ; Disagree = - 1.

VI. CHRONOLOGICAL AGE.

Operational Definition: A measure of objectively experienced age which determines the number of years passed since an individual's birth.

Scale: (Asked immediately after the four Cognitive Age Items) Please tell me now, what is your ACTUAL age? -years.

Scoring: The number of years given in response to the question. To be included in the analysis, a respondent has to indicate an exact number of years and be chronologically thirty to sixty-nine years old.

VII. PROGENY AGES.

Operational Definition : Chronological Age measures of an individual's progeny (offspring), respectively:

(a) Chronological Age of an individual's youngest

(b) Chronological Age of an individual's oldest child. child.

126 I BENNYBARAK

(c) Chronological Age of an individual’s youngest

(d) Chronological Age of an individual’s oldest grandchild.

grandchild.

Scale: 1. How old are your children? Youngest is - years. Oldest is __ years.

2. How old are your grandchildren? Youngest is - years. Oldest is years.

Scoring: The number of years given in response t o the questions. In the instance that an age has been indicated for a youngest, but not for an oldest child, the scoring procedure ascertains that the oldest child receives a score similar to the youngest child. A similar scoring procedure is followed for the Chronological Ages of grandchildren. If a respondent has no children, Progeny Age variables are excluded from analysis.

VIII. YOUTH AGE.

Operational Definition: The discrepancy between Chronological and Cognitive Age expressed in number of years. Youth Age is a measure of denial-of-aging, and as such is concerned with the difference between objectively and subjectively experienced age.

Scoring: Computation of the discrepancy between Chronological and Cognitive Age.

YOUTH AGE = CHRONOLOGICAL AGE - COGNITIVE AGE.

IX. DISPARITY AGE.

Operational Definition: The discrepancy between Chronological and Ideal Age expressed in number of years. Disparity Age is an “age- longing” measure which evaluates attitude towards Chronological Age status (it assesses feelings about Chronological Age relative to the age one desires).

Scoring: Computation of the discrepancy between Chronological and Ideal Age. DISPARITY AGE = CHRONOLOGICAL AGE - IDEAL AGE.

REFERENCES

1. B. Bell, Significance of Functional Age for Interdisciplinary and Longitudinal Research in Aging, Aging and Human Development, 3,

2. L. F. Jarvik, Thoughts on the Psychobiology of Aging, American Psychologist, 30, pp. 576-583, 1975,

3. C. L. Rose, The Measurement of Social Age, Aging and Human Development, 3, pp. 153-167, 1972.

pp. 145-147, 1972.

COGNITIVEAGE / 127

4. G. R. Peters, Self-Conceptions of the Aged, Age-Identification and Aging, The Gerontologist, 11, pp. 69-73, 1971.

5. N. E. Cutler, Subjective Age Identification, in Research Instruments in Social Gerontology: Clinical and Social Psychology, Volume 1, D. J . Mangen and W. A. Petersen (eds.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN,

6. L. Underhill and F. Cadwell, “What Age Do You Feel” Age Perception Study, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1, pp. 18-27, Summer 1983.

7. R. Kastenbaum, V. Derbin, P. Sabatini, and S. Arrt, “The Ages of Me” Toward Personal and Interpersonal Definitions of Functional Aging, Aging and Human Development, 3, pp. 197-21 1, 1972.

8. B. Barak, Cognitive Reference Age Among the Elderly: A New Concept for Marketing, unpublished doctoral dissertation, the City University of New York, New York, NY, 1979.

9. B. Barak and L. G. Schiffman, Cognitive Age: A Nonchronological Age Variable, in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 8, K. B. Monroe(ed.), Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 602-606, 1981.

10. B. Barak and S. Could, Alternative Age Measures: A Research Note, in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 12, E. C. Hirschman and M. B. Holbrook (eds.), Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI,

11. I. Ross, Information Processing and the Older Consumer: Marketing and Public Policy Implications, in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 9, A. Mitchell (ed.), Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI,

12. R. Kastenbaum and N. Durkee, Elderly People View Old Age, in New Thoughts on Old Age, R. Kastenbaum (ed.), Springer, New York, NY,

13. L. M. Breytspraak and L. K. George, Self-concept and Self-Esteem, in Research Instruments in Social Gerontology: Clinical and Social Psychology, Volume 1, D. J . Mangen and W. A. Petersen (eds.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 24 1-302, 1982.

14. M. Rosenberg, Conceiving the Self; Basic Books, New York, NY, 1979. 15. M. J. Sirgy, Self-concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review, Journal

of Consumer Research, 9, pp. 287-300, December 1982. 16. K. L. Bloom, Age and the Self-concept, American Journal of Psychiatry,

17. G. L. Bultena and E. A. Powers, Denial of Aging: Age Identification and Reference Group Orientations, Journal of Gerontology, 11, pp. 748-754, 1978.

18. D. C. Borland, Research on Middle Age: An Assessment, The Gerontologist, 18, pp. 379-386, August 1978.

19. E. Mutran and L. K. George, Alternative Methods of Measuring Role/ Identity: A Research Note, Social Forces, 60, pp. 866-876, March 1982.

20. M. W. Linn and K. Hunter, Perception of Age in the Elderly, Journal of Gerontology, 34, pp. 46-52, 1979.

pp. 437-461, 1982.

pp. 53-58, 1985.

pp. 31-39, 1982.

pp. 250-262, 1964.

118, pp. 534-538, 1961.

128 I BENNYBARAK

21. J. T. Puglesi and D. W. Jackson, Age Identification and Self Concept in Later Adulthood, Psychological Reports, 43, pp. 789-790, 1978.

22. I. K. Zola, Feelings about Age among Older People, Journal of Gerontology,

23, V. L. Bengston and N. E. Cutler, Generations and Intergenerational Relations: Perspectives on Age Groups and Social Change, in Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, R. H. Binstock and E. Shanas (eds.), Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, pp. 130-'159, 1976.

24. V. L. Bengston, P. L. Kasschau, and P. K. Ragan, The Impact of Social Structure on Aging Individuals, in Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie (eds.), Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, pp. 327-359, 1977.

25. E. Mutran and P. J. Burke, Personalism as a Component of Old Age Identity, Research on Aging, 1, pp. 38-63, 1979.

26. V. Wood, M. Wylie, and B. Sheafer, An Analysis of a Short Self-Report Measure of Life-Satisfaction: Correlation with Rater Judgements, Journal of Gerontology, 24, pp. 265-469, 1969.

27. J. Cohen and P. Cohen, Applied Multiple Regression fCorrelation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, 1975.

17, pp. 65-68, 1962.

Direct reprint requests to:

Benny Barak, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Marketing Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11 550