IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v76y2021i7p1282-1291..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence for an Age-Related Positivity Effect in Metacognitive Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Edie C Sanders
  • Jane M Berry
  • Angela Gutchess

Abstract

ObjectivesIf older adults (OAs) are focused on emotionally meaningful goals in late life, they should demonstrate memory biases for positive stimuli over neutral and negative stimuli and, arguably, these cognitive biases should be reflected in their metacognitive judgments of learning (JOLs). To address this question, we examined age differences in metacognitive monitoring of emotionally valenced stimuli.MethodYounger adults (YAs) and OAs (N = 85) studied positive, neutral, and negative words and made immediate JOLs, followed by a 2-alternative forced choice (2AFC) recognition memory task.ResultsAnalyses of JOLs revealed evidence for a positivity effect in metacognitive judgments for OAs and an emotional salience effect in YAs. YAs recognized more words than OAs, but valence did not affect number of words recognized and did not moderate age differences in memory (p = .055). Memory monitoring as measured by resolution accuracy was equivalent in YAs and OAs. Positive affect was higher and negative affect was lower in OAs relative to YAs, lending additional evidence to the emergence of a positive orientation in older adulthood.DiscussionThese results provide intriguing and novel support for the positivity effect in the domain of metacognitive aging, adding to what is known in memory, attention, and emotion domains. Our findings fall squarely within socioemotional and metacognitive theoretical frameworks from which they were derived. We discuss research directions that might identify mechanisms by which affective states and stimuli interact to produce metacognitive outcomes in late life.

Suggested Citation

  • Edie C Sanders & Jane M Berry & Angela Gutchess, 2021. "Evidence for an Age-Related Positivity Effect in Metacognitive Judgments," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 76(7), pages 1282-1291.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:76:y:2021:i:7:p:1282-1291.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbaa177
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:76:y:2021:i:7:p:1282-1291.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.