Content uploaded by Claudia Haase
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claudia Haase on Dec 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted Manuscript
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society
of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Reactive, Agentic, Apathetic, or Challenged?
Aging, Emotion, and Coping During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Nathaniel A. Young, MA1, Christian E. Waugh, PhD2, Alyssa R. Minton, MA1,
Susan T. Charles, PhD3, Claudia M. Haase, PhD4, and Joseph A. Mikels, PhD1
1 Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois.
2 Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
3 Department of Psychological Science and School of Social Ecology, University of
California-Irvine, Irvine, California.
4 Department of Human Development and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston,
Illinois.
*Address correspondence to: Joseph A. Mikels, PhD, Department of Psychology, DePaul
University, 2219 N. Kenmore Ave., Chicago, IL 60614 USA. E-mail: jmikels@depaul.edu
Funding: This research was partially supported by the National Institute on Aging, Grants
R21-AG059938 and R01-AG043533, and by the National Science Foundation, Grant SES-
1536260.
Conflict of Interest: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no
conflict of interest.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Advanced age is generally associated with improved
emotional well-being, but the COVID-19 pandemic unleashed a global stressor that gravely
threatened the physical well-being and ostensibly challenged the emotional well-being of
older adults disproportionately. The current study investigated differences in emotional
experiences and coping strategies between younger and older adults during the pandemic, and
whether these differences were accounted for by age differences in appraisal of the pandemic.
Research Design and Methods: We asked younger (n = 181) and older adult (n = 176)
participants to report their stress, appraisals the pandemic, emotions, and the ways in which
they were coping with the pandemic.
Results: Results indicated that older adults experienced less stress and less negative affect
and used greater problem-focused coping and less avoidant coping in response to the
pandemic than younger adults. Further, age differences in affect and coping were partially
accounted for by age differences in appraisals of the pandemic.
Discussion and Implications: Despite their objectively higher risk of illness and death due
to the pandemic, older adults experienced less negative affect and used more agentic coping
strategies than younger adults.
Keywords: affect, aging, appraisal, chronic stress, emotion regulation
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
In late 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) identified a novel coronavirus
(SARS-CoV-2) from a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China (World Health
Organization [WHO], 2020). By April 2020, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had spread
around the world, infecting over 3 million people (“Coronavirus pandemic” 2020),
unleashing an unpredictable, complex stressor on the human population. The Center for
Disease Control (CDC) articulated that older individuals were disproportionately at risk for
hospitalization and death compared to younger individuals: approximately 80% of deaths
reported in the United States were among those over the age of 60 (Center for Disease
Control [CDC], 2020; Smith-Ray, Roberts, Littleton, Singh, Sandberg, & Taitel, Submitted).
As such, COVID-19 posed a more serious threat for older than younger adults, thereby
potentially resulting in higher levels of stress and negative emotions for our elders. However,
some of the societal measures (e.g., stay-at-home orders) that many countries imposed to
combat the virus may have been easier to follow for older adults due to fewer work-related
responsibilities. Thus, it was an open question whether and how older adults differed from
their younger counterparts in their emotional responses to the pandemic.
Life-span theories of adult development can guide research on this question. Strength
and vulnerability integration theory (SAVI; Charles, 2010) would predict that the way
individuals across the adult life span deal with a new chronic stressor depends on age-related
strengths and vulnerabilities. According to SAVI, older age is related to increased
vulnerabilities in physiological flexibility that make it difficult to deal with high levels of
distress-related physiological activation (Charles, Luong, & Almeida, 2009; Charles &
Piazza, 2009; Neupert, Almeida, Charles, 2007). On the other hand, SAVI also posits that
older age is related to increased strengths in emotional appraisals and adaptive coping
strategies that lead to adaptive responses to many other stressors (Charles, 2010; Charles &
Luong, 2013; Schirda, Valentine, Aldao, & Prakash, 2016). For example, older adults’
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
interpersonal expertise and improved use of emotion regulation strategies have been shown to
lead to less social stress and fewer negative emotions in response to stressors relative to
younger adults (Almeida, & Horn, 2004; Charles, Luong, Almeida, Ryff, Sturm, & Love,
2010; Luong & Charles, 2014). Overall, age-related strengths tend to outweigh age-related
vulnerabilities, leading to improved emotional well-being as we age; older age is associated
with the experience of fewer negative emotions and similar or greater levels of positive
emotions, a phenomenon referred to as age-related positivity in emotional experience
(different from the positivity effect in attention and memory; Carstensen & Mikels, 2005;
Reed, Chan, & Mikels, 2014; Mikels, Reed, Hardy, & Löckenhoff, 2014). Unknown is
whether age-related positivity persists in response to a pandemic that gravely challenges both
physical and mental well-being.
If age-related strengths outweigh age-related vulnerabilities in response to the
pandemic, this may be due to age-related differences in appraisals of the pandemic (Charles
& Carstensen, 2010). Appraisal theories of emotion posit that appraisal is the central process
of evaluating the environment in relation to the individual’s well-being – and that appraisal
processes elicit and differentiate emotional experiences through interactional patterns across
various dimensions of appraisal (i.e. goal relevance, certainty, agency; Moors, Ellsworth,
Scherer, & Frijda, 2013). The appraisal approach to aging and emotion (AAAE) places
appraisal as the central mechanism that differentiates emotional experience for younger and
older adults (Young, Minton, & Mikels, 2020; Mikels & Young, 2018). Evidence indicates
that younger adults’ goals focus on acquiring resources to deal with an uncertain future,
whereas older adults’ goals focus on maintaining socioemotional harmony in the present
moment (Carstensen et al., 1999; Fung & Carstensen, 2004; Penningroth & Scott, 2012). The
AAAE framework postulates that age differences in patterns of goal-related appraisals (e.g.,
goal-relevance, goal-congruence) and other appraisals (e.g., certainty, agency) may influence
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
how older versus younger adults respond to and cope with the pandemic. The nascent
evidence supporting AAAE shows that older adults report lower levels of negative affect in
response to uncertain ambiguous situations, which is mediated by age differences in higher
appraisals of personal control (Young & Mikels, 2019). Thus, along with other possible
appraisals, goal- and control-related appraisals may be important in shaping younger and
older adults’ response to the pandemic. Relatedly, younger and older adults are known to
implement different control processes that change depending on life constraints (Baltes &
Baltes, 1990; Heckahusen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010). Specifically, as direct control over the
environment declines in old age, alternative control strategies such as goal modification
become more successful (Heckhausen et al., 2010). AAAE posits that appraisals of control,
power (over the environment) and adjustment (to the environment) relate to these processes
and help form a sense of control that can be implemented via primary or secondary control
mechanisms.
In addition to shaping emotional responses to stressors like the pandemic, appraisal
processes are also theorized to shape coping responses to stressors (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen,
& DeLongis, 1986: Folkman, & Moskowitz, 2004). The cognitive theory of psychological
stress and coping posits that stress occurs when an individual appraises the person-
environment relationship as uncontrollable and threatening to well-being, and that patterns of
appraisal guide coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). As such, individuals with different
goal and agency appraisal patterns may tend to use different coping strategies to deal with the
pandemic. For example, individuals who appraise high levels of agency may be more likely
to use control-oriented coping strategies (e.g., problem-focused), whereas individuals who
appraise situations as less controllable may be more likely to use passive types of coping (e.g.
avoidant). Given that older adults tend to appraise greater agency than younger adults (Young
& Mikels, 2019), it would follow that older adults might report greater problem focused
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
coping and less avoidant coping compared to younger adults. Appraisal may therefore be the
mechanism that differentiates older and younger adults’ emotional and coping responses to a
stressor such as the pandemic.
The current study was designed to examine the ways in which younger and older
adults appraise, feel, and cope in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To test appraisal
theory in a novel way, we assessed appraisals, and then extracted four unique profiles that
varied in appraisal patterns using a hierarchical cluster analysis. We hypothesized that if older
adults appraise more agentically, we expect them (1) to experience less stress and less
negative affect relative to younger adults, and (2) to report more problem-focused coping and
less avoidant emotion regulation strategies relative to younger adults. In addition, we
hypothesized that older and younger adults would vary in the profiles of appraisals they
endorsed, such that (3) age differences in appraisal patterns would explain age differences in
emotional experience and coping strategies.
Method
Participants
Sample size for this study was determined using a power analysis that calculated the
minimum sample size (N = 352) needed to detect effects as low as Cohen’s d = .3 between
age groups with 80% power. A total of 388 participants were recruited to ensure an adequate
sample size after excluding participants due to attention checks (failed at least 1 of 2 attention
checks; 15 excluded) and to not meeting age requirements (i.e. aged 30-54; 21 excluded). The
final sample consisted of 181 younger (M age = 24.6, SD = 1.9, range = 18-25, 38.7%
women), and 176 older adults (M age = 63.3, SD = 5.3, range = 55-79, 64.7% women) for a
total of 357 participants (see Table 1 for a description of the sample). Participants were
recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and compensated $3 in April 2020. The
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
study was approved by DePaul University’s Institutional Review Board, and the data can be
found on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/h38bs/.
Materials
Stress Aspects Manipulation. One part of the present study was designed to examine
how younger and adults responded to the cognitive versus interpersonal aspects of the
pandemic. Therefore, participants were randomly assigned to either a cognitive (n = 169) or
interpersonal (n = 188) survey condition that framed the questions in terms of those pandemic-
related sources of stress. Age group differences in stress, appraisal, affect, and coping were
not influenced by the framing of the questions (interpersonal aspects vs cognitive aspects), so
analyses pooled both conditions together, but included the survey condition to which
participants were assigned as a covariate for control purposes.
Perceived Stress Scale. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a 10-item scale that
measures the degree to which a person perceives their life as stressful (Cohen, Scheier, &
Weintraub, 1989). Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale (0 = Never, 4 = Very
Often;
Appraisals. To measure appraisals related to the pandemic, we adapted 17 different
appraisal dimensions that are generally agreed to be important to emotional experience from
an appraisal theory perspective (Scherer, 2013; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). The appraisal
dimension questions were adapted to be oriented toward evaluations related to the pandemic
(See Appendix 1 in Online Supplementary Material for a list of the appraisal dimensions).
Participants responded to each appraisal dimension on a 7-point scale (1 = Not at all, 7 =
Extremely). Each appraisal dimension was treated as a separate scale. As such, reliability
analyses across the appraisal dimensions are not reported.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Modified Differential Emotions Scale. We adapted the modified differential
emotional scale (mDES; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003) to specifically
measure the emotions people were experiencing because of stress related to the pandemic.
The mDES measures 12 positive emotional states (amusement, awe, compassion,
contentment, gratitude, hope, interest, joy, love, pride, surprise, flirtatious) and 8 negative
emotional states (anger, contempt, disgust, embarrassment, fear, guilt, sadness, shame) using
word triads (i.e., three words that represent the same emotional state: e.g., amusement, fun-
loving, silly). Participants were asked to think back to how they felt in the past week when
dealing with stress related to the pandemic. Participants responded to the extent that they
have felt each of the 20 emotion triads on a 5-point scale (0 = Not at all, 4 = Extremely).
Positive and negative affect scores were calculated by averaging the 12 positive emotion
The COPE. To measure the ways in which people cope in response to the pandemic,
we used the COPE, which is a 60-item measure that assesses various ways people respond to
stress (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Participants responded to each item on a 4-point
scale (1 = I usually don’t do this, 4 = I usually do this a lot). We used the factor structure
extracted in Litman (2006) that identified four COPE subscales. The subscales include
problem-focused coping
.89), emotion-focused coping (positive reinterpretation, acceptance, restraint, humor, religion:
socially-supported coping (emotional-social support, instrumental-social support,
avoidant-coping
1
(behavioral disengagement, denial, substance use,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
COVID-19 Status and Vulnerability Perceptions. Participants were asked three
questions to measure their perception of their own vulnerability to COVID-19. One question
asked participants “Have you been sick in the past months and think that perhaps you had
COVID-19?” Participants responded to this question by selecting one of three answers (I’m
certain I have not had COVID-19; Maybe I have had COVID-19; I’m certain I have had
COVID-19). Next, two questions assessed perceptions of vulnerability related to contracting
COVID-19. Participants were asked to select how much they agreed with the statements: “I
am vulnerable to getting the coronavirus” and “If I get the virus, I am vulnerable to getting
very sick from it.” Participants responded to these questions on a bipolar scale ranging from -
3 (Strongly Disagree) to 3 (Strongly Agree). Each item was treated as a separate scale. As
such, reliability analyses across these items are not reported.
Social Distancing Measures. Participants were asked three questions to measure the
extent to which they were socially distancing during the pandemic. The first question asked
participants “Are you currently living alone?” Participants responded to this question by
selecting either “Yes” or “No”. In addition, participants were asked two questions about their
perceived ability to socially distance during the pandemic. One question asked “To what
extent are you currently doing social distancing as a result of COVID-19?”, and the other
question asked “To what extent are you currently NOT doing social distancing (e.g., because
of care responsibilities, place of work, other household members) as a result of COVID-19?”
Both questions asked participants to respond on a scale of 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely).
Each item was treated as a separate scale. As such, reliability analyses across these items are
not reported.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Procedure
Upon signing up and then consenting to participate in the study, participants
completed a series of questionnaires. First, participants completed questions related to their
current health status, perceptions of COVID-19, and social distancing. Then, participants
completed the PSS, the appraisal questions, the mDES, and the COPE, in that order. Prior to
ending the study, participants completed a demographic questionnaire.
Results
The following analyses were conducted using R (R Core Team, 2019), and the
packages ggstatsplot (Patil, 2018), and effectsize (Ben-Shachar, Makowski, Lüdecke,
2020). Table 1 presents the demographic, health status, perceptions of vulnerability to
COVID-19, and perceptions of the ability to social distance by age group. The cognitive (c; n
= 169) and interpersonal (i; n = 188) stress aspects conditions did not differ (all t-values <
1.96, all p-values > .05) in terms of stress (Mc = 1.36, SDc = .82; Mi = 1.54, SDi = .80),
positive emotions (Mc = 1.65, SDc = .79; Mi = 1.45, SDi = .79), negative emotions (Mc =
0.95, SDc = .80; Mi = 1.03, SDi = .83), problem-focused coping (Mc = 2.36, SDc = .67; Mi =
2.26, SDi = .63), emotion-focused coping (Mc = 2.29, SDc = .51; Mi = 2.21, SDi = .51),
socially supported coping (Mc = 2.02, SDc = .64; Mi = 1.96, SDi = .67), or avoidant coping
(Mc = 1.64, SDc = .52; Mi = 1.65, SDi = .53). However, as stated above, the stress aspects
condition variable was used as a covariate in all subsequent analysis. Relative to younger
adults, older adults reported more vulnerability to COVID-19, but also greater perceptions of
the ability to socially distance. Younger and older adult groups also differed on income level,
sex, and race, so we included these demographic variables as covariates in all the subsequent
analyses.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
---- Table 1 ----
Age Differences in Stress, Emotion, and Coping during the Pandemic.
We first conducted a series of ANCOVAs to investigate age differences in stress,
affect, and coping during the pandemic after adjusting for: stress aspects condition; age
differences in income, sex, race, perceptions of vulnerability to COVID-19; and social
distancing (See Table 2 for a complete list of test statistics). Results indicated that older
adults reported less stress and less negative affect relative to younger adults. Older adults also
reported more problem-focused coping and less socially supported coping and avoidant
coping. These results suggest that older, relative to younger, adults responded less negatively
and were coping by focusing on the problems rather than avoiding them.
---- Table 2 ----
An Analysis of Appraisal Patterns.
To extract different patterns of appraisal, we conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis
on the 17 appraisal dimensions across all participants. The 17 appraisal dimensions were first
standardized and then converted into a distance matrix using a Euclidean distance formula.
Next, a hierarchical clustering algorithm using Ward’s method was applied to the appraisal
data using the hclust function (R Core Team, 2019). To determine an optimal number of
clusters for the HCA, a parallel analysis was conducted using the nFactors package (Raiche
& Magis, 2020). A parallel analysis is a method that uses a Monte-Carlo simulation to
determine at what point the addition of more clusters is unable to explain additional variance
based on eigenvalues. The parallel analysis suggested that 4 clusters was an optimal solution.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
As such, 4 distinct appraisal profiles (i.e., patterns/clusters) were determined and served as
between-subjects variables for further analyses.
The Appraisal Profiles. To characterize the 4 profiles across the appraisal
dimensions, we looked for patterns within and across the profiles and categorized them as
follows (see Table 3 for a summary of the means that describe the appraisal profiles). The
group of participants assigned to Profile 1, termed the “Apathetic” profile, indicated that the
pandemic was not relevant to them, despite having low agency to deal with problems related
to the pandemic. The group of participants assigned to Profile 2, termed the “Reactive”
profile, indicated that the pandemic was obstructing their goals, and that it was both a
moderately-high pleasant and unpleasant state, potentially due to their increased uncertainty-
but also agency-related appraisals. The group of participants assigned to Profile 3, termed the
“Agentic” profile, had the highest level of agency to deal with problems related to the
pandemic, and indicated that the pandemic did not obstruct their goals. The group of
participants assigned to Profile 4, termed the “Challenged” profile, indicated that the
pandemic was the most relevant to them, highly unpleasant, yet they also displayed
moderately high levels of agency to deal with problems related to the pandemic.
---- Table 3 ----
Age Differences in the Appraisal Profiles. To determine if age differences existed
across the appraisal profiles, we regressed age group (ref = older adults) on the appraisal
profile variable (ref = apathetic profile) in a multinomial logistic regression. The Apathetic
profile was used as the reference group for the appraisal profiles because it had relatively
similar numbers of older and younger adults compared to the other three profiles. Results
indicated that relative to the Apathetic profile, the Reactive profile was more likely to include
younger adults (B = 1.89, SE = .49, OR = 6.63, OR 95% CI: 2.69, 18.93, p < .001), whereas
the Agentic (B = -.849, SE = .30, OR = .428, OR 95% CI: .235, .771, p < .006), and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Challenged (B = -.979, SE = .32, OR = .376, OR 95% CI: .200, 695, p < .003) profiles were
more likely to include older adults. Overall, it appears that younger adults were similarly
p < .139), but older adults were more
likely to be in the Agentic and Challenged profiles, and less likely to be in the Reactive
p < .001; see Figure 1). As such, the results indicate that older adults
were more likely to appraise in an agentic or challenged manner, whereas younger adults
appraised in a variety of different ways.
--- Figure 1 ---
Differences in Emotional Experience Between Appraisal Profiles.
Analyses were conducted on the positive and negative emotional experience and
stress levels of the participants in each appraisal profile. A mixed-effects model was
conducted to examine the levels of positive and negative affect in each appraisal profile. We
tested the 2 (Valence: positive, negative) within x 4 (Appraisal profile: Apathetic, Reactive,
Agentic, Challenged) between-subjects interaction controlling for age group, stress condition,
and the other demographic variables that differed by age group. A significant Valence by
Appraisal profile interaction indicated that each appraisal profile was associated with
different levels of positive and negative affect (F(3, 676) = 49.1, p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.47,
95% CI: 0.40, 0.53; See Figure 2). Both the Agentic and Apathetic profile participants
reported greater positive than negative affect, although the differences were much larger for
the Agentic profile participants (positive: M = 1.80, SD = .81; negative: M = .390, SD = .39;
t(120) = -16.08, p < .001, g = -1.45, 95% CI: -1.72, -1.21) than the Apathetic profile
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
participants (positive M = 1.26, SD = .72; negative: M = .928, SD = .62; t(72) = -2.96, p <
.005, g = -.34, 95% CI: -.59, -.11). Both the Reactive and Challenged profile participants
reported similar levels of positive and negative affect, although overall levels were much
higher for the Reactive profile participants (positive: M = 1.97, SD = .62; negative: M = 1.88,
SD = .77); than the Challenged participants (positive: M = 1.19, SD = .69; negative: M =
1.21, SD = .74). This pattern of findings indicates that participants who appraised in an
agentic manner also reported experiencing the greatest levels of positive relative to negative
emotions. Overall, this suggests that the Agentic appraisal pattern relates to better emotional
well-being during the pandemic relative to the other profiles.
--- Figure 2 ---
In addition, differences between profiles were found within negative and positive
valence. For negative affect, Reactive profile participants had significantly higher levels
compared to participants in each of the other three profiles (Challenged: t(161) = 5.56, p <
.001, g = .89, 95% CI: .56, 1.23; Apathetic: t(134) = -7.89, p < .001, g = -1.36, 95% CI: -
1.73, -.98: Agentic: t(182) = 14.51, p < .001, g = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.79, 2.72). The Challenged
participants had the second highest levels of negative affect, significantly higher than the
other two profiles (Apathetic: t(171) = -2.67, p < .01, g = -.40, 95% CI: -.72, -.11; Agentic:
t(219) = -9.92, p < .001, g = -1.37, 95% CI: -1.65, -1.03). The Apathetic profile participants
followed, with significantly higher levels than the Agentic participants: t(181) = 6.63, p <
.001, g = 1.03, 95% CI: .66, 1.30).
For positive affect, the Reactive participants reported higher levels of positive affect
than the Apathetic (t(134) = -6.20, p < .001, g = -1.06, 95% CI: -1.43, -.70) and the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Challenged participants (t(182) = 7.52, p < .001, g = 1.19, 95% CI: .86, 1.55), but similar
levels to the Agentic participants. The Agentic participants also reported higher levels of
positive affect than the Apathetic (t(171) = -4.83, p < .001, g = -.70, 95% CI: -1.01, -.41) and
the Challenged participants (t(219) = 6.06, p < .001, g = .81, 95% CI: .54, 1.09).
To test if participants from different appraisal profiles differed in their stress to the
pandemic, a 4 (Appraisal profile: Apathetic, Reactive, Agentic, Challenged) between-subjects
ANCOVA was conducted controlling for age group, stress condition, and the other
demographic variables that differed by age group. A significant main effect of appraisal
profile indicated that there were differences in stress between the appraisal profiles (F(3, 333)
= 32.6, p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.63). Consistent with the pattern of
negative affect, the participants with the most stress were the Reactive participants (M = 1.98,
SD = .48), and the Challenged participants (M = 1.76, SD = .85), which were statistically
similar. The Reactive participants reported more stress relative to the Apathetic (M = 1.58,
SD = .67) and the Agentic (M = 0.87, SD = .63) participants (respectively: t(134) = 4.00, p <
.005, g = -.68, 95% CI = -1.03, -.34; t(182) = 13.4, p < .001, g = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.70, 2.44).
In addition, the Challenged and the Apathetic participants reported more stress compared to
the Agentic participants (respectively: t(219) = 8.70, p < .001, g = -1.19, 95% CI = -1.46, -
.89; t(171) = 7.30, p < .001, g = 1.09, 95% CI = .77, 1.39). In sum, these findings suggest that
the Reactive participants were the most stressed and most emotional compared to the other
participants. On the other hand, it also indicates that the Agentic participants responded with
the least stress and greatest emotional well-being, in terms of positive relative to negative
emotions.
In sum, each profile displayed a unique pattern of perceived stress and emotional
responding. The Reactive participants reported the highest stress, and similarly high levels of
negative and positive affect. Regarding the Challenged profile, these participants reported
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
similarly high levels of stress compared to the Reactive participants, but lower negative and
positive affect. In comparison, the Agentic participants reported the similarly high levels of
positive affect relative to the Reactive participants, but the lowest levels of stress and
negative affect compared to the other profiles. In contrast the Apathetic participants also
reported lower levels of stress and negative affect relative to the Reactive and Challenged
participants, but only slightly greater positive than negative affect.
Appraisal Profiles Account for Age Differences in Negative Emotional Experience.
Given that older and younger adults differed in their negative, but not positive, affect
we aimed to test the hypothesis that age differences in appraisal profiles account for age
differences in emotional experience. To do this we conducted a mediation analysis to test for
indirect effects (IE) of age group on negative affect using the appraisal profile factor as a
mediator. For this analysis, two regressions were conducted to estimate the IE using a
bootstrapping procedure. For the A-paths, a multinomial logistic regression was used to
regress age group (ref = older adults) on the appraisal profile factor (ref = Apathetic profile).
Then, both age group and appraisal profile were regressed on negative affect, establishing the
B-and C-paths (see Figure 3 for all pathways).
The indirect effects of age group via the appraisal profiles on negative affect was
estimated using 5,000 bootstrapped samples, and the 95% confidence interval was computed
by determining the indirect effect at the 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles for the mediator. Results
indicated that age differences in negative affect can be accounted for by the appraisal
profiles. Specifically, more younger relative to older adults fell into the Reactive profile
appraisal patterns, which was related to greater negative affect for younger adults (IE = 1.75,
SE = .009, p < .001, 95% CI: .789, 3.10, Proportion Mediated= .64). On the other hand, more
older adults relative to younger adults fell into the Agentic profile appraisal pattern, which
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
was related to lower levels of negative affect (IE = .417, SE = .002, p < .001, 95% CI: .130,
760, Proportion Mediated = .15). However, another cluster of older adults tended to be
included in the Challenged profile appraisal patterns more so than younger adults, which was
related to an increased level of negative affect (IE = -.330, SE = .002, p < .001, 95% CI: -
.686, -.088, Proportion Mediated = .12), but less so than the Reactive profile pattern of
appraisal. Overall, these findings indicate that younger and older adults’ negative reactivity
during the pandemic was at least in part due to age differences in their appraisal patterns.
--- Figure 3 ---
Differences in Coping with the Pandemic between the Appraisal Profiles.
Four ANCOVAs examined differences in coping with the pandemic between the
appraisal profiles. Due to age differences in demographic and COVID-19 related variables,
we included these variables as covariates for each ANCOVA. The analysis reported here will
focus on the effect of appraisal profile on each coping type. See Table 4 for a full list of
descriptive statistics and omnibus tests.
--- Table 4 ---
Results of the four ANCOVAs indicated a main effect of appraisal profile for each
coping type. Overall, the Reactive participants reported the greatest attempt to cope across all
coping types. For problem-focused coping, the Reactive participants reported more coping
compared to Agentic (t(182) = 4.09, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .63, 95% CI: .32, .95) and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Apathetic participants (t(134) = -5.96, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -1.02, 95% CI: -1.4, -.66), but
similar levels of problem-focused coping to the Challenged participants. The Challenged
participants had more problem-focused coping only relative to the Apathetic participants
(t(171) = -3.58, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -.55, 95% CI: -86, -.24). The Agentic participants were
statistically similar to both the Challenged and the Apathetic participants for problem focused
coping. In sum, the Reactive participants reported using the most problem-focused coping,
and the Apathetic participants reported the least.
For emotion-focused coping, the Reactive participants reported more coping
compared to all the other profiles (Agentic: t(182) = 3.53, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .55, 95% CI:
.24, .86; Challenged: t(161) = 4.76, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .77, 95% CI: .44, 1.1; Apathetic:
t(134) = -5.53, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -.95, 95% CI: -1.3, -.59). The other three profiles
reported statistically similar levels of emotion-focused coping. In other words, the Reactive
participants used more emotion-focused coping relative to the other appraisal profile groups.
For socially supported coping, the Reactive participants reported more coping
compared to all the other profiles (Agentic: t(182) = 10.1, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.57, 95%
CI: 1.2, 1.9; Challenged: t(161) = 4.72, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .76, 95% CI: .43, 1.1;
Apathetic: t(134) = -7.79, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -1.34, 95% CI: -1.7, -1.0). The Challenged
participants reported more coping compared to Agentic (t(219) = -4.79, p < .001, Cohen’s d =
-.65, 95% CI: -.92, -.38) and Apathetic participants (t(171) = -3.01, p < .005, Cohen’s d = -
.46, 95% CI: -.77, -.16). The Agentic and the Apathetic participants reported statistically
similar levels of coping. This pattern indicates that the Reactive profile reported the most
socially supported coping, whereas the Apathetic profile reported the least.
For avoidant coping, the Reactive participants reported more coping compared to all
the other profiles (Agentic: t(182) = 15.2, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.36, 95% CI: 2.0, 2.7;
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Challenged: t(161) = 8.78, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.8; Apathetic: t(134) = -
8.14, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -1.40, 95% CI: -1.8, -1.0). The Challenged and the Apathetic
participants reported more coping compared to the Agentic participants (t(219) = -5.92, p <
.001, Cohen’s d = -.80, 95% CI: -1.1, -.52; t(192) = 5.36, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .79, 95% CI:
.49, 1.1). As such, the Reactive participants reported the most avoidant coping and the
Agentic participants reported the least.
In sum, these results indicate that participants who appraised differently reported
different patterns of coping across the various strategies. The Reactive participants attempted
to cope the most, whereas the other profiles’ coping patterns varied. It is interesting to note
that although the Agentic participants appraised high levels of the ability to cope with the
pandemic, they reported relatively lower levels of socially supported and avoidant coping but
reported higher levels of problem- and emotion-focused coping specifically.
Appraisal Profiles Account for Age Differences in Coping with the Pandemic.
Given that age differences in coping were found for socially supported,
avoidant coping and problem-focused coping, we tested the hypothesis that age differences in
coping can be accounted for by age differences in appraisal. For these analyses, we conducted
mediation analyses examining the appraisal profile factor as a mediator in the relationship
between age group and coping. Two regressions were conducted to estimate the IE using a
bootstrapping procedure. For the A-paths, a multinomial logistic regression was used to
regress age group on the appraisal profile factor, using the Apathetic profile, and older adult
groups as reference groups. Then both age group and the appraisal profile factors were
regressed on socially supported coping, avoidant coping and problem-focused coping,
establishing the B-and C-paths. The analysis indicated that age group indirectly influenced
socially supported, avoidant coping, and problem-focused coping via appraisal profile paths.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
For socially supported coping, age group indirectly influenced coping via the Reactive (IE =
1.44, SE = .008, p < .001, 95% CI: .68, 2.6, Proportion Mediated = .69), and the Challenged
profiles (IE = -.313, SE = .002, p < .001, 95% CI: -.65, -.07, Proportion Mediated = .30), but
not the Agentic profile. This result indicates that age differences in socially supported coping
can be accounted for by older and younger adults’ different appraisal patterns during the
pandemic.
For avoidant coping, age group indirectly influenced coping with the pandemic via
the Reactive (IE = 1.29, SE = .009, p < .001, 95% CI: .58, 2.2, Proportion Mediated = .63),
and Agentic profiles (IE = .198, SE = .001, p < .001, 95% CI: .05, .39, Proportion Mediated =
.23), but not the Challenged profile. This result indicates that younger adults’ increased
avoidant coping is related to their reactive appraisal pattern, whereas older adults’ decreased
use of avoidant coping is related to the agentic appraisal pattern.
For problem-focused coping, age group indirectly influenced coping with the
pandemic via the Reactive (IE = 1.26, SE = .007, p < .001, 95% CI: .59, 2.2, Proportion
Mediated = .51), and Challenged (IE = -.290, SE = .002, p < .001, 95% CI: -.63, -.06,
Proportion Mediated = .23), but not the Agentic profile. This result indicates that increased
use of problem-focused coping for younger adults is related to a reactive type of appraisal
whereas for older adults’ problem-focused coping is related to a challenged type of appraisal.
Discussion
The current findings illustrate how younger and older adults evaluated, felt, and coped
in response to a novel global stressor, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite greater perceptions
of vulnerability to COVID-19, older adults were less stressed and had lower levels of
negative affect compared to younger adults, aligning with other work on aging and stress
during the pandemic (e.g., see Nelson & Bergeman, 2020). In addition, older adults reported
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
more problem-focused coping and less avoidant and socially supported types of coping with
the pandemic relative to their younger counterparts.
Drawing from the cognitive theory of psychological stress and coping (Folkman et al,
1986; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004) and AAAE (Young et al., 2020), results confirmed our
expectations, indicating that differences in emotional experience and coping were related to
age differences in appraisal of the pandemic. We found that people’s appraisals of the
pandemic fell into four distinct patterns that differed by age group, except for the Apathetic
profile which was relatively similar in numbers of younger and older adults. Compared to
older adults, younger adults were much more likely to be in the Reactive profile. The
Reactive profile was associated with high goal relevance and obstruction, certainty of
pandemic outcomes, and agency appraisals that indicated it was unclear if self or others were
in control during the pandemic. These reactive participants also reported the highest levels of
stress, positive and negative affect, as well as the most avoidant coping. This pattern of
findings indicates that people in this group were the most labile in their emotions and
attempted to regulate these emotions the most.
Relative to younger adults, older adults were more likely to be in the Agentic and
Challenged profiles. The Agentic profile, which was associated with high agency and low
goal obstruction, was related to low stress, much greater levels of positive affect relative to
negative affect, and the least amount of avoidant coping. On the other hand, the Challenged
profile, which was associated with high goal relevance and unpleasantness, and also lesser
agency, was related to moderate levels of stress, similar positive and negative affect, greater
levels of problem-focused and socially supported coping relative to other profiles. The
contrasting appraisal patterns of the agentic and the challenged profiles, sheds light on the
ability of older adults to maintain emotional well-being in the face of the pandemic, and
others were not. The older adults who reported greater agency related to pandemic with less
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
goal obstruction displayed less negative affect, but for the older adults who appraised the
pandemic as highly relevant, highly obstructing, unpleasant and with less agency showed
greater negative affect.
Overall, this pattern is consistent with AAAE and SAVI’s predictions about younger
versus older adult emotional experience. Older adults who appraised in an agentic manner
reported a pattern of emotional experience that reflects age-related strengths outweighing
age-related vulnerabilities, which in turn related to less negative affect relative younger adults
in general. However, older adults who appraised the pandemic in a challenged manner tended
to show a pattern of increased negative affect. In other words, differences in appraisal can
account for age differences, but also can account for variability in affect within the older
group.
The finding that older adults were most likely to fall into either the Agentic or the
Challenged profile reveals that the older adults varied in their response to the pandemic, with
some responding with less distress than others. We speculate that some differences in older
adults’ appraisal patterns may be related to differences in either a perceived or even an actual
elevated risk of COVID-19 infection,given that older adults vary in health status, and some
may have a chronic physical condition or engage in behavior (e.g., smoking) that increases
their risk if they contract the disease. In addition, differences among older adults may also be
related to biases in memory recall or individual differences in dispositional factors. SAVI
predicts that older adults are successful at maintaining high levels of well-being only in
situations where they can engage in thoughts and behaviors that allow them to avoid highly
distressing situations (Charles, 2010). Perhaps the older adults in the agentic pattern represent
those who were successful in their ability to socially distance and reduce their exposure,
whereas those in the challenged profile group were those whose circumstances made it
impossible to avoid highly risky situations. On the other hand, age differences in how older
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
and younger adults implement control processes may also underlie age differences in the
appraisal profiles. Given older adults’ decline in the ability to assert direct control over the
environment (primary control), they may instead rely more on their abilities to self-regulate
to improve their response to the environment (secondary control; Heckhausen et al., 2010).
Although we cannot distinguish between appraisal and primary and secondary control
processes in the current work, the present study does show that patterns of appraisal relate to
the coping strategies that younger and older adults reported using during the pandemic. In
other words, the ways in which older and younger adults evaluate the pandemic relate to the
ways in which they regulate in response to the environment, suggesting that age-differences
in secondary control may be present.
In sum, the current work examined age differences in stress, emotion, and coping in
the context of a pandemic. It is the first to comprehensively extract the appraisal patterns of
younger and older adults as they contribute to age differences in emotional experience and
coping. Although there are limitations to this study, such as recruitment using a specific
online platform and a correlational approach, this work builds upon a body of research
showing age-related improvements in emotional experience. Specifically, our study indicates
that emotional well-being in older adulthood persists even in the face of being objectively
more at risk of illness and death due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, this study
indicates that although older adults understood their vulnerability to COVID-19, it did not
negate age-related positivity, resulting from age-related differences in appraisal and coping.
Thus, despite age-related vulnerabilities, the emotional strengths of our elders often
supersede these vulnerabilities – even in the face of a global pandemic.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Author Note
1 Note some conceptualizations of avoidant-coping include strategies aimed at the avoidance
of interpersonal conflict (see Charles, et al., 2009; Fingerman & Charles, 2010). The present
conceptualization and measurement of avoidant-coping does not include the avoidance of
interpersonal conflict and is therefore conceptually different from avoidance of interpersonal
conflict.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
References
Almeida, D. M., & Horn, M. C. (2004). Is daily life more stressful during middle adulthood.
In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & Kessler, R. C. How healthy are we?: A national study of
well-being at midlife (Eds). University of Chicago Press.
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The
model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes
(Eds.), Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences (p. 1–34).
Cambridge University Press.
Ben-Shachar, M., Makowski, D., & Lüdecke, D. (2020). “Compute and interpret indices of
effect size.” CRAN. R package, https://github.com/easystats/effectsize
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A
theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165
Carstensen, L. L., & Mikels, J. A. (2005). At the intersection of emotion and cognition:
Aging and the positivity effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 117-
121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00348.x
Carstensen, L. L., Mikels, J. A., & Mather, M. (2006). Aging and the intersection of
cognition, motivation, and emotion. In Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 343-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
362). Academic Press.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2),
267-283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Charles, S. T. (2010). Strength and vulnerability integration: A model of emotional well-
being across adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1068-1091.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021232
Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 383-409. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448
Charles, S. T., & Luong, G. (2013). Emotional experience across adulthood: The theoretical
model of strength and vulnerability integration. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 22(6), 443-448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413497013
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. 65,
279-286. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbq002
Charles, S. T., & Piazza, J. R. (2009). Age differences in affective well‐being: Context
matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(5), 711-724.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00202.x
Charles, S. T., Piazza, J. R., Luong, G., & Almeida, D. M. (2009). Now you see it, now you
don’t: Age differences in affective reactivity to social tensions. Psychology and aging,
24(3), 645-653. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016673
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, April 30). Older adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html
Coronavirus pandemic: Tracking the global outbreak. (2020, May 6). BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105
Fingerman, K. L., & Charles, S. T. (2010). It takes two to tango: Why older people have the
best relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 172–176.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370297
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health
status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 571-579. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.3.571
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 745-774. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are
positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following
the terrorist attacks on the United Sates on September 11, 2001. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.84.2.365
Fung, H. H., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Motivational changes in response to blocked goals
and foreshortened time: testing alternatives to socioemotional selectivity theory.
Psychology and Aging, 19(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.68
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span
development. Psychological Review, 117(1), 32.
https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0017668
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Litman, J. A. (2006). The COPE inventory: Dimensionality and relationships with approach-
and avoidance-motives and positive and negative traits. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.032
Luong, G., & Charles, S. T. (2014). Age differences in affective and cardiovascular responses
to a negative social interaction: The role of goals, appraisals, and emotion regulation.
Developmental Psychology, 50, 1919-1930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036621
Patil, I. (2018). ggstatsplot: "ggplot2" Based Plots with Statistical Details.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2074621, https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=ggstatsplot
Penningroth, S. L., & Scott, W. D. (2012). Age-related differences in goals: Testing
predictions from selection, optimization, and compensation theory and socioemotional
selectivity theory. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development,
74(2), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.74.2.a
Mikels, J. A., Reed, A. E., Hardy, L. M., & Löckenoff, C. E. (2014). Positive emotions across
the adult life span. In M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby (Eds). Handbook of
positive emotions (p. 256–271). Guilford Press.
Mikels, J. A., & Young, N. A. (2018). New directions in theories of emotion and aging. In
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of
emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5, 119-124.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912468165
Nelson, N. A., & Bergeman, C. S. (2020). Daily stress processes in a pandemic: The effects
of worry, age, and affect. The Gerontologist. Advance online publication.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa187
Neupert, S. D., Almeida, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (2007). Age differences in reactivity to
daily stressors: The role of personal control. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, 216-226.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geron/62.4.P216
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
Raiche, G. & Magis, D. (2020). nFactors: Parallel Analysis and Other Non Graphical
Solutions to the Cattell Scree Test. Version 2.4.1.
Scherer, K. R. (2013). The nature and dynamics of relevance and valence appraisals:
Theoretical advances and recent evidence. Emotion Review, 5(2), 150-162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912468166
Schirda, B., Valentine, T. R., Aldao, A., & Prakash, R. S. (2016). Age-related differences in
emotion regulation strategies: Examining the role of contextual factors.
Developmental Psychology, 52(9), 1370-1380. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000194
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.48.4.813
Smith-Ray, R., Roberts, E.E., Littleton, D.E., Singh, T., Sandberg, T., Taitel, M. United
States distribution of patients at risk for complications related to COVID-19. JMIR
Preprints. 24/04/2020:19606. https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.19606
World Health Organization. (2020). WHO timeline – COVID-19. https://www.who.int/news-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
room/detail/27-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19
Young, N. A., & Mikels, J. A. (2019). Paths to positivity: the relationship of age differences
in appraisals of control to emotional experience. Cognition and Emotion. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1697647
Young, N. A., Minton, A. R., & Mikels, J. A. (2020). An appraisal approach to aging and
emotion: Considering the role of appraisal processes in emotional experience across
the adult life span. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Table 1. Participant Demographics, Health Status, Perceptions of Vulnerability to COVID-
19, and Perceptions of Social Distancing by Age Group.
Younger Adults (N = 181)
Older Adults (N = 176)
Test statistic
Variable
Mean
SD
%
Mean
SD
%
t or
p
Age (years)
24.6
1.9
63.3
5.3
t=90.5
< .001
Education (years)
15.3
2.1
15.2
2.7
t=-.578
.56
Income a
2.70
.90
2.40
.90
t=-3.12
< .002
Sex (female) b
38.7
64.7
< .001
Race (white) c
61.9
92.0
< .001
Health Status d
.956
.71
.835
.79
t=-1.52
.13
COVID Status (Not Had)
78.5%
80.1%
.72
Vulnerability (To COVID)
-.355
1.8
.777
1.7
t=6.02
< .001
Vulnerability (Very Sick)
-.564
1.8
1.11
1.7
t=8.85
< .001
Living Alone (% Yes)
21.5%
29.9%
.10
Socially Distancing
5.97
1.2
6.38
.91
t=3.67
< .001
Not Socially Distancing
2.41
1.8
1.65
1.1
t=-4.81
< .001
Notes. a On a scale ranging from 1 (lower income) to 5 (upper income). b Possible options: male, female, prefer
not to answer. c Possible options: Black or African American, American Indian / Alaska Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, Other. d One a scale ranging from 1 (Very bad) to 5 (Very good).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Table 2. ANCOVA Results for the Stress, Emotion, and Coping Measures by Age Group.
Younger Adults
(N = 181)
Older Adults
(N = 176)
Test statistic
Variable
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
F(3, 336)
p
Cohen’s f
PSS
1.77
.76
1.14
.74
83.8
< .001
.50
Positive Affect
1.63
.80
1.47
.78
.388
= .533
.03
Negative Affect
1.24
.89
.734
.64
36.4
< .001
.33
Problem-focused
2.26
.66
2.36
.63
5.73
= .017
.13
Emotion-focused
2.26
.54
2.24
.48
.522
= .470
.04
Socially supported
2.11
.57
1.87
.62
18.6
< .001
.24
Avoidant
1.84
.61
1.45
.34
32.0
< .001
.31
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Table 3. A Summary of the Means of the Appraisal Profiles.
Appraisal Dimensions
Profile 1
“Apathetic”
N = 73
(43 YA, 30 OA)
Profile 2
“Reactive”
N = 63
(57 YA, 6 OA)
Profile 3
“Agentic”
N = 121
(46 YA, 75 OA)
Profile 4
“Challenged”
N = 100
(35 YA, 65 OA)
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Goal Relevance
3.27
4.63
2.60
5.56
Pleasantness
2.14
4.49
3.04
1.89
Unpleasantness
3.30
4.63
2.02
4.94
Goal obstruction
2.85
4.83
1.90
4.92
Urgency
2.89
4.63
1.67
3.66
Unexpectedness
2.86
4.60
2.14
4.42
Predictability
2.48
4.80
3.30
2.87
Understandability
3.78
5.08
4.89
5.49
Other-fault
3.82
4.44
3.05
4.96
Circumstantial-fault
2.22
4.51
3.01
2.63
Intentionality
1.99
4.49
2.91
2.40
Self-control
2.82
4.37
5.07
3.98
Other-control
2.88
4.38
2.10
3.55
Circumstantial-control
2.93
4.67
3.48
3.30
Adjustment
3.25
4.86
5.63
4.50
Coping potential
3.73
4.65
5.84
4.68
Personal value change
2.38
4.86
1.47
2.63
Note. All of the appraisal dimensions are on a 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely) scale; YA = younger adults; OA =
older adults.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Table 4. Summary of the ANCOVAs Testing for Coping Differences Between Appraisal
Profiles.
“Apathetic”
“Reactive”
“Agentic”
“Challenged”
ANCOVA
result
Coping Type
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
F(3,333)
f
95% CI
Problem-focused
2.07
.58
2.63
.50
2.22
.70
2.40
.63
8.18*
.27
.17 .35
Emotion-focused
2.09
.48
2.53
.46
2.25
.53
2.18
.47
6.78*
.25
.14, .33
Social-support
1.81
.59
2.56
.52
1.72
.55
2.10
.65
19.2*
.42
.31, .50
Avoidant
1.61
.42
2.32
.59
1.34
.28
1.62
.42
42.0*
.62
.51, .71
Note: These effects hold with and without including the covariates in the analysis. * indicates p < .001
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Figure 1. The distribution of the younger and older adult groups across the four appraisal
profiles
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Figure 2. This figure represents the interaction between valence type and appraisal profile on
the positive and negative affect scores. The plots represent the distributions of negative
(green dots) and positive (orange dots). The distributions are illustrated using violin plots and
boxplots. The red dot represents the mean of the distributions. The red lines illustrate the
difference between the means of the negative versus positive affect distributions.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
Accepted Manuscript
Figure 3. An illustration of the paths tested in the mediation analysis showing that the age
difference in negative emotional experience during the pandemic is accounted for by
differences in the way participants appraised the pandemic. Note: Two separate models were
used to estimate these paths. The older adult group and the Apathetic profile are used as
reference groups for the regressions used in this analysis. Red lines between age group and an
appraisal profile indicates that younger adults are less likely to appraise via that appraisal
profile type, and blue lines indicate that younger adults are more likely to appraise via that
appraisal profile type relative to older adults. Red lines between an appraisal profile and
negative affect indicate less negative affect relative to the apathetic profile, and blue lines
indicate more negative affect relative to the apathetic profile.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa196/6024652 by guest on 22 December 2020
