Psychology and Aging 2014, Vol. 29, No. 3, 451-453
© 2014 American Psychological Association 0882-7974/14/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037555
Aging and Social Perception: So Far, More Similarities Than Differences Alexandra M. Freund
Derek M. Isaacowitz
University of Zurich
Northeastern University
Despite the pervasiveness of social perception in everyday life, relatively little is known about how the way we see ourselves and other people changes with age. The central questions to consider are if and how the perceiver’s age and the perceived person’s age affect fundamental processes of social perception. The current collection of 9 articles addresses both questions. Taking Brunswik’s lens model of social perception as an overarching theoretical framework, this introduction concludes on the basis of these 9 articles that age as a characteristic of the perceiver does not appear to have a strong effect on social judgments. In contrast, the age of the perceived person or group seems to affect the perceiver’s social inferences, interpretation of facial stimuli, or expectations of gains and losses in various domains of functioning. Thus, the articles presented here suggest that, although age is an important social category when perceiving another person, processes of social perception demonstrate more similarities than differences between age groups. Keywords: social perception, social judgment, Brunswik’s lens model
In the past few years, there has been an enormous interest in how socioemotional processes change with age. A previous special section of this journal, edited by Fredda Blanchard-Fields in 2005, highlighted this burgeoning research area. Researchers in the field of social aging have been designing increasingly sophisticated studies on emotion and, in so doing, utilizing research methods and concepts from other areas of psychology interested in emotion. In particular, a social-cognitive approach has been prominent in social psychological research on emotion, and studies in the aging literature have shared this approach. For example, work on attri butions has considered the role of positive and negative emotional states in age differences in attributional patterns (Mienaltowski & Blanchard-Fields, 2005). This interchange between the aging and social psychological research traditions has revealed that one par ticular area has received less attention than others from aging researchers despite its being a prominent topic among social psy chologists: social perception. Although we know a great deal about socioemotional processes in the context of aging, we know quite a bit less about social perception. For example, how does social perception change across adulthood and old age? Or does it stay stable? In other words, do people as they age perceive themselves and others differently and, if so, in what way? This special section sets out to explore these questions and to highlight the burgeoning research on them for those who study aging. Social perception refers to processes related to judgments and inferences about individuals (including ourselves) or social groups.
Such judgments and inferences are formed on the basis of— sometimes minimal— information about the perceived individual or group, such as their age, ethnicity, appearance, or behavior. The judgments or inferences can be about diverse states or traits of the perceived individual or group, ranging from their personality, motives, emotions, or thoughts to moral judgments. Even authors such as lussim (2012), who have criticized the predominant view of social psychology that biases in social perception are rampant (e.g., Gilbert, 1994), concede that characteristics of the perceiver (e.g., his or her motivation, emotional state, prior experience) influence social judgments and inferences. In other words, one does not need to believe that social perception is inherently biased to be interested in whether there are differences in social percep tion as a function of perceiver qualities. The perceiver’s age can be one of these characteristics, and it is the one under scrutiny in this special section. How might age affect social perception? Before summarizing the individual articles in the special section, we first consider on a conceptual level how age might influence the components of social perception. Drawing on Brunswik’s lens model (Brunswik, 1952), social perception entails inferences about distal variables (i.e., characteristics of an individual or groups) based on proximal or cue variables that can be perceived. The relation between cue and distal variables is probabilistic and their strength denotes the ecological validity. The judgment or inference drawn by the per ceiver is based on cue variables, again in a probabilistic way. The association between cue variables and the perceiver’s judgment is called the cue utilization validity. The perceiver’s age can enter this model at any point. It might alter the ecological validity (i.e., the association between distal and cue variables) or the cue utili zation validity (i.e., the relation between cue variables and social judgment). Age may alter these relations as, according to Brunswik, they represent their occurrence in the “natural” and social environment of a person. In other words, ecological validity and cue utilization validity reflect the learning history and adap-
Alexandra M. Freund, Department of Psychology and University Re search Priority Program Dynamics of Healthy Aging, University of Zurich; Derek M. Isaacowitz, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alexan dra M. Freund, University of Zurich, Department of Psychology and University Research Priority Program Dynamics of Healthy Aging, Binzmuehlestrasse 14 (P.O. Box 11), CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: freund @psychologie.uzh.ch 451
452
FREUND AND ISAACOWITZ
tations to changes a person experiences in his or her social context, and are thus likely to be affected by age (Freund & Isaacowitz, 2013; Isaacowitz & Stanley, 2011; Richter, Dietzel, & Kunzmann,
2011). Another way that age can affect social perception is as a char acteristic of the perceived person or group. Age might be a proximal variable and be used as a cue to infer traits or states of the perceived person or group, or a distal variable such that the age of a perceived person or group is inferred from observed proximal cues (e.g., behaviors, traits). The articles in this special section address different ways in which age may affect various forms of social perception. The article by Zebrowitz and colleagues in this collection is explicitly based on Brunswik’s lens model in addressing the ques tion concerning how accurately younger and older adults infer the quality of health and level of competence of young and old adults based on pictures of their faces. This study addresses the impact of age both from the perspective of the perceiver and the perspective of the perceived. Interestingly, perceivers’ age did not affect the accuracy of competence and health judgments, but the age of the displayed faces (cue variables) did. Competence was more accu rately perceived in young faces, whereas health was more accu rately inferred from old faces. Attractiveness of the faces emerged as an important moderator of accuracy in both competence and health judgments. The Kang et al. article also considers both perceiver and target characteristics. Similar to the aforementioned article, perceiver age did not emerge as a key moderator of the person perception judgments, in which targets varied on age (young vs. old) and ethnicity (European vs. African American). Instead, the “interac tive” effects of age and ethnicity on social judgments were main tained across age of perceivers. This further suggests the impor tance of cue variables in ways that may not vary across adulthood. Attesting to the wealth of research on social perception in the area of forming impressions based on facial expressions, a second article on this topic by Krendl, Rule, and Ambady investigated if the cue utilization (i.e., detecting complex social cues and accurate emotion recognition) might be impaired in older as compared with younger adults. This study also used young and old persons as stimuli, thus using essentially the same design as Zebrowitz and colleagues. Interestingly, emotion recognition accuracy as well as cognitive functioning of the perceiver was unrelated to the accu racy of first impression. These findings suggest that domains of social perception outside of emotion recognition may rely on mechanisms that are relatively unimpaired by aging. Bailey and colleagues studied a different aspect of social per ception, namely the degree to which attention is guided by gaze cues in still pictures. This article also addressed age as a proximal cue of the perceived (young vs. old faces) and age of the perceiver, and investigated if younger and older adults differ in following gaze cues. Moreover, tapping into potential age-related differences in cue utilization, Bailey and colleagues varied the presentation of the gaze cues such that they were either consciously perceived or not and used different facial expressions (neutral, happy, or fear ful). Results suggest that age of the perceiver and age of the perceived face as well as cue utilization (supra- vs. subliminal presentation) affected age-related differences in gaze-directed at tention. This complex pattern of results underscores the impor
tance of taking age of the perceiver and the perceived into account, when studying social perception. Again varying both the age of the perceiver and the age of the perceived, Riediger, Voelkle, Schaefer, and Lindenberger investi gated beliefs about typical social and cognitive performance tra jectories from 5 to 85+ years. In line with a Brunswikian ap proach, they argue that children have not yet made sufficient observations and have not yet been exposed to cultural beliefs to the same degree as older age groups to result in a high consensus in their ratings of developmental trajectories. Moreover, ratings by adolescents and younger adults showed higher accuracy in their judgments of cognitive developmental trajectories when compared with empirical findings of cognitive functioning than ratings by children and older adults. It would be interesting to disentangle whether these differences are due to a lower ecological validity or a lower cue utilization validity in children and older adults com pared to adolescents and young adults. Turning to a different aspect of social perception, Hemmesch investigates how variations in the proximal variables (i.e., abnor mal bodily movement and facial masking in persons with Parkin son’s disease) affect older observers judgments in terms of social positivity. Such a study can shed light on inferences that the age-peers of the Parkinson patients draw from the cues of body movement and facial expressivity, regardless of their ecological validity. Interestingly, it seems that deviations from typical de grees of body movement and facial expressivity are taken as cues for a more negative social judgment. Also tapping into the issue of the perception of deviations from typical behavior, Stanley, Lohani, and Isaacowitz investigated age differences in responses to social faux-pas, such as those often displayed on TV or in movies. Following up on previous studies finding age differences in social faux-pas ratings, this study as sessed whether observed age effects are rooted in actual abilities or instead may arise due to differences in preferences (in this case concerning what is considered funny). Findings suggest that dif ferences may not be solely due to abilities, but instead have to do with age differences in the view of what constitutes humor—a reminder to not attribute any observed age difference solely to age-related decrements in underlying abilities. This suggests, that the proximal cues have an age-differential association to the distal variable (i.e., different things are considered funny). Thus, the ecological validity of the film clips is affected by age, not the ability to detect social faux pas in general. One of the interesting questions in social perception research is which information is considered a proximal cue for a distal vari able. It might be that there are age-related differences in the ecological validity of the relation between proximal and distal variables. This question was investigated by Hess and Smith who provided evaluative information irrelevant for the social judgment at hand. Results from two studies provide no evidence for agerelated differences in the processing of evaluative information when making social inferences. Demonstrating the richness of the phenomena associated with social perception, Weiss investigated factors that determine whether people perceive themselves more as a member of a certain generation (e.g., baby boomers) or as a member of a certain age group (e.g., 70-year-olds), and identified awareness of the finitude of one’s life and the wish for generational continuity. This study shows that altering the state of the perceivers (by inducing aware-
SOCIAL PERCEPTION SPECIAL SECTION EDITORIAL
ness of finitude) or by varying their age, changes the judgment about oneself regarding one’s social identity. Here, the same proximal cue (i.e., a certain age) is either taken as an indicator of belonging to a specific age group or to a certain generation. Taken together, this collection of articles shows that the pro cesses of social perception seem to be more invariant than different across the age of the perceiver. As laid out at the beginning of this introduction, we maintain that Brunswik’s lens model is well suited to systematize the different ways in which age might affect social perception. Age seems to have a stronger impact as a proximal cue for social judgments and inferences. This suggests that age is a powerful social cue on which people base their judgment, rather than that age affects the way in which we make inferences. Given the recent strong focus on positivity in the study of aging and emotion (see, e.g., Reed & Carstensen, 2012), it is interesting to note that age-related positivity does not appear pervasive in the studies on social perception represented in this special section. This suggests that the study of aging and social perception pro vides an area of opportunity for exploring and testing multiple theories about potential mechanisms and moderators, and even for testing competing models against each other. In this special section, with the exception of the article by Weiss, the articles focus on social judgments and their accuracy. Although there is a strong and long tradition of this research in mainstream social psychology, the question of the extent to which processes of social perception vary by the age of the perceivers and the perceived has recently begun to receive increasing attention. We hope that this collection of articles will stimulate much more research in this area.
453
References Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Interna tional encyclopedia o f unified science (Vol. 1, No. 10, pp. 656-760). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Freund, A. M., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2013). Beyond age comparisons: A plea for the use of a modified Brunswikian approach to experimental designs in the study of adult development and aging. Human Develop ment, 56, 351-371. doi: 10.1159/000357177 Gilbert, D. T. (1994). Attribution and interpersonal perception. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 99-147). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Isaacowitz, D. M., & Stanley, J. T. (2011). Bringing an ecological per spective to the study of aging and emotion recognition: Past, current, and future methods. Journal o f Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 261-278. doi: 10.1007/sl0919-011-0113-6 Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195366600.001.0001 Mienaltowski, A., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2005). The differential effects of mood on age differences in the correspondence bias. Psychology and Aging, 20, 589-600. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.589 Reed, A. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2012). The theory behind the age-related positivity effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 339. doi:10.3389/fpsyg .2012.00339 Richter, D., Dietzel, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2011). Age differences in emotion recognition: The task matters. Journal o f Gerontology: Psycho logical Sciences, 66, 48-55. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq068
Received June 23, 2014 Accepted June 30, 2014 ■
Copyright of Psychology & Aging is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
© 2014 American Psychological Association 0882-7974/14/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037555
Aging and Social Perception: So Far, More Similarities Than Differences Alexandra M. Freund
Derek M. Isaacowitz
University of Zurich
Northeastern University
Despite the pervasiveness of social perception in everyday life, relatively little is known about how the way we see ourselves and other people changes with age. The central questions to consider are if and how the perceiver’s age and the perceived person’s age affect fundamental processes of social perception. The current collection of 9 articles addresses both questions. Taking Brunswik’s lens model of social perception as an overarching theoretical framework, this introduction concludes on the basis of these 9 articles that age as a characteristic of the perceiver does not appear to have a strong effect on social judgments. In contrast, the age of the perceived person or group seems to affect the perceiver’s social inferences, interpretation of facial stimuli, or expectations of gains and losses in various domains of functioning. Thus, the articles presented here suggest that, although age is an important social category when perceiving another person, processes of social perception demonstrate more similarities than differences between age groups. Keywords: social perception, social judgment, Brunswik’s lens model
In the past few years, there has been an enormous interest in how socioemotional processes change with age. A previous special section of this journal, edited by Fredda Blanchard-Fields in 2005, highlighted this burgeoning research area. Researchers in the field of social aging have been designing increasingly sophisticated studies on emotion and, in so doing, utilizing research methods and concepts from other areas of psychology interested in emotion. In particular, a social-cognitive approach has been prominent in social psychological research on emotion, and studies in the aging literature have shared this approach. For example, work on attri butions has considered the role of positive and negative emotional states in age differences in attributional patterns (Mienaltowski & Blanchard-Fields, 2005). This interchange between the aging and social psychological research traditions has revealed that one par ticular area has received less attention than others from aging researchers despite its being a prominent topic among social psy chologists: social perception. Although we know a great deal about socioemotional processes in the context of aging, we know quite a bit less about social perception. For example, how does social perception change across adulthood and old age? Or does it stay stable? In other words, do people as they age perceive themselves and others differently and, if so, in what way? This special section sets out to explore these questions and to highlight the burgeoning research on them for those who study aging. Social perception refers to processes related to judgments and inferences about individuals (including ourselves) or social groups.
Such judgments and inferences are formed on the basis of— sometimes minimal— information about the perceived individual or group, such as their age, ethnicity, appearance, or behavior. The judgments or inferences can be about diverse states or traits of the perceived individual or group, ranging from their personality, motives, emotions, or thoughts to moral judgments. Even authors such as lussim (2012), who have criticized the predominant view of social psychology that biases in social perception are rampant (e.g., Gilbert, 1994), concede that characteristics of the perceiver (e.g., his or her motivation, emotional state, prior experience) influence social judgments and inferences. In other words, one does not need to believe that social perception is inherently biased to be interested in whether there are differences in social percep tion as a function of perceiver qualities. The perceiver’s age can be one of these characteristics, and it is the one under scrutiny in this special section. How might age affect social perception? Before summarizing the individual articles in the special section, we first consider on a conceptual level how age might influence the components of social perception. Drawing on Brunswik’s lens model (Brunswik, 1952), social perception entails inferences about distal variables (i.e., characteristics of an individual or groups) based on proximal or cue variables that can be perceived. The relation between cue and distal variables is probabilistic and their strength denotes the ecological validity. The judgment or inference drawn by the per ceiver is based on cue variables, again in a probabilistic way. The association between cue variables and the perceiver’s judgment is called the cue utilization validity. The perceiver’s age can enter this model at any point. It might alter the ecological validity (i.e., the association between distal and cue variables) or the cue utili zation validity (i.e., the relation between cue variables and social judgment). Age may alter these relations as, according to Brunswik, they represent their occurrence in the “natural” and social environment of a person. In other words, ecological validity and cue utilization validity reflect the learning history and adap-
Alexandra M. Freund, Department of Psychology and University Re search Priority Program Dynamics of Healthy Aging, University of Zurich; Derek M. Isaacowitz, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alexan dra M. Freund, University of Zurich, Department of Psychology and University Research Priority Program Dynamics of Healthy Aging, Binzmuehlestrasse 14 (P.O. Box 11), CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: freund @psychologie.uzh.ch 451
452
FREUND AND ISAACOWITZ
tations to changes a person experiences in his or her social context, and are thus likely to be affected by age (Freund & Isaacowitz, 2013; Isaacowitz & Stanley, 2011; Richter, Dietzel, & Kunzmann,
2011). Another way that age can affect social perception is as a char acteristic of the perceived person or group. Age might be a proximal variable and be used as a cue to infer traits or states of the perceived person or group, or a distal variable such that the age of a perceived person or group is inferred from observed proximal cues (e.g., behaviors, traits). The articles in this special section address different ways in which age may affect various forms of social perception. The article by Zebrowitz and colleagues in this collection is explicitly based on Brunswik’s lens model in addressing the ques tion concerning how accurately younger and older adults infer the quality of health and level of competence of young and old adults based on pictures of their faces. This study addresses the impact of age both from the perspective of the perceiver and the perspective of the perceived. Interestingly, perceivers’ age did not affect the accuracy of competence and health judgments, but the age of the displayed faces (cue variables) did. Competence was more accu rately perceived in young faces, whereas health was more accu rately inferred from old faces. Attractiveness of the faces emerged as an important moderator of accuracy in both competence and health judgments. The Kang et al. article also considers both perceiver and target characteristics. Similar to the aforementioned article, perceiver age did not emerge as a key moderator of the person perception judgments, in which targets varied on age (young vs. old) and ethnicity (European vs. African American). Instead, the “interac tive” effects of age and ethnicity on social judgments were main tained across age of perceivers. This further suggests the impor tance of cue variables in ways that may not vary across adulthood. Attesting to the wealth of research on social perception in the area of forming impressions based on facial expressions, a second article on this topic by Krendl, Rule, and Ambady investigated if the cue utilization (i.e., detecting complex social cues and accurate emotion recognition) might be impaired in older as compared with younger adults. This study also used young and old persons as stimuli, thus using essentially the same design as Zebrowitz and colleagues. Interestingly, emotion recognition accuracy as well as cognitive functioning of the perceiver was unrelated to the accu racy of first impression. These findings suggest that domains of social perception outside of emotion recognition may rely on mechanisms that are relatively unimpaired by aging. Bailey and colleagues studied a different aspect of social per ception, namely the degree to which attention is guided by gaze cues in still pictures. This article also addressed age as a proximal cue of the perceived (young vs. old faces) and age of the perceiver, and investigated if younger and older adults differ in following gaze cues. Moreover, tapping into potential age-related differences in cue utilization, Bailey and colleagues varied the presentation of the gaze cues such that they were either consciously perceived or not and used different facial expressions (neutral, happy, or fear ful). Results suggest that age of the perceiver and age of the perceived face as well as cue utilization (supra- vs. subliminal presentation) affected age-related differences in gaze-directed at tention. This complex pattern of results underscores the impor
tance of taking age of the perceiver and the perceived into account, when studying social perception. Again varying both the age of the perceiver and the age of the perceived, Riediger, Voelkle, Schaefer, and Lindenberger investi gated beliefs about typical social and cognitive performance tra jectories from 5 to 85+ years. In line with a Brunswikian ap proach, they argue that children have not yet made sufficient observations and have not yet been exposed to cultural beliefs to the same degree as older age groups to result in a high consensus in their ratings of developmental trajectories. Moreover, ratings by adolescents and younger adults showed higher accuracy in their judgments of cognitive developmental trajectories when compared with empirical findings of cognitive functioning than ratings by children and older adults. It would be interesting to disentangle whether these differences are due to a lower ecological validity or a lower cue utilization validity in children and older adults com pared to adolescents and young adults. Turning to a different aspect of social perception, Hemmesch investigates how variations in the proximal variables (i.e., abnor mal bodily movement and facial masking in persons with Parkin son’s disease) affect older observers judgments in terms of social positivity. Such a study can shed light on inferences that the age-peers of the Parkinson patients draw from the cues of body movement and facial expressivity, regardless of their ecological validity. Interestingly, it seems that deviations from typical de grees of body movement and facial expressivity are taken as cues for a more negative social judgment. Also tapping into the issue of the perception of deviations from typical behavior, Stanley, Lohani, and Isaacowitz investigated age differences in responses to social faux-pas, such as those often displayed on TV or in movies. Following up on previous studies finding age differences in social faux-pas ratings, this study as sessed whether observed age effects are rooted in actual abilities or instead may arise due to differences in preferences (in this case concerning what is considered funny). Findings suggest that dif ferences may not be solely due to abilities, but instead have to do with age differences in the view of what constitutes humor—a reminder to not attribute any observed age difference solely to age-related decrements in underlying abilities. This suggests, that the proximal cues have an age-differential association to the distal variable (i.e., different things are considered funny). Thus, the ecological validity of the film clips is affected by age, not the ability to detect social faux pas in general. One of the interesting questions in social perception research is which information is considered a proximal cue for a distal vari able. It might be that there are age-related differences in the ecological validity of the relation between proximal and distal variables. This question was investigated by Hess and Smith who provided evaluative information irrelevant for the social judgment at hand. Results from two studies provide no evidence for agerelated differences in the processing of evaluative information when making social inferences. Demonstrating the richness of the phenomena associated with social perception, Weiss investigated factors that determine whether people perceive themselves more as a member of a certain generation (e.g., baby boomers) or as a member of a certain age group (e.g., 70-year-olds), and identified awareness of the finitude of one’s life and the wish for generational continuity. This study shows that altering the state of the perceivers (by inducing aware-
SOCIAL PERCEPTION SPECIAL SECTION EDITORIAL
ness of finitude) or by varying their age, changes the judgment about oneself regarding one’s social identity. Here, the same proximal cue (i.e., a certain age) is either taken as an indicator of belonging to a specific age group or to a certain generation. Taken together, this collection of articles shows that the pro cesses of social perception seem to be more invariant than different across the age of the perceiver. As laid out at the beginning of this introduction, we maintain that Brunswik’s lens model is well suited to systematize the different ways in which age might affect social perception. Age seems to have a stronger impact as a proximal cue for social judgments and inferences. This suggests that age is a powerful social cue on which people base their judgment, rather than that age affects the way in which we make inferences. Given the recent strong focus on positivity in the study of aging and emotion (see, e.g., Reed & Carstensen, 2012), it is interesting to note that age-related positivity does not appear pervasive in the studies on social perception represented in this special section. This suggests that the study of aging and social perception pro vides an area of opportunity for exploring and testing multiple theories about potential mechanisms and moderators, and even for testing competing models against each other. In this special section, with the exception of the article by Weiss, the articles focus on social judgments and their accuracy. Although there is a strong and long tradition of this research in mainstream social psychology, the question of the extent to which processes of social perception vary by the age of the perceivers and the perceived has recently begun to receive increasing attention. We hope that this collection of articles will stimulate much more research in this area.
453
References Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Interna tional encyclopedia o f unified science (Vol. 1, No. 10, pp. 656-760). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Freund, A. M., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2013). Beyond age comparisons: A plea for the use of a modified Brunswikian approach to experimental designs in the study of adult development and aging. Human Develop ment, 56, 351-371. doi: 10.1159/000357177 Gilbert, D. T. (1994). Attribution and interpersonal perception. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 99-147). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Isaacowitz, D. M., & Stanley, J. T. (2011). Bringing an ecological per spective to the study of aging and emotion recognition: Past, current, and future methods. Journal o f Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 261-278. doi: 10.1007/sl0919-011-0113-6 Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195366600.001.0001 Mienaltowski, A., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2005). The differential effects of mood on age differences in the correspondence bias. Psychology and Aging, 20, 589-600. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.589 Reed, A. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2012). The theory behind the age-related positivity effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 339. doi:10.3389/fpsyg .2012.00339 Richter, D., Dietzel, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2011). Age differences in emotion recognition: The task matters. Journal o f Gerontology: Psycho logical Sciences, 66, 48-55. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq068
Received June 23, 2014 Accepted June 30, 2014 ■
Copyright of Psychology & Aging is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
