INT’L. J. AGING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 79(2) 109-129, 2014

BABY BOOMERS’ SUBJECTIVE LIFE COURSE AND ITS PHYSICAL HEALTH EFFECTS: HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT?

ANNE E. BARRETT Florida State University, Tallahassee ERICA L. TOOTHMAN University of South Florida, Tampa

ABSTRACT

We consider members of the “forever young” cohort’s negotiation of aging by examining how shifts in their views of the life course and their location in it influence their physical health. Using OLS regression (Midlife in the United States, 1995-1996 and 2004-2006; n = 1,257), we compare Early and Late Baby Boomers’ subjective life course, measured as age identity and timing of middle age, and its physical health effects with those of an earlier cohort, the Lucky Few. Contrary to expectations, the earlier cohort not only held more elongated conceptions of the life course at Wave 1 but also lengthened them more between waves than did Baby Boomers. Results also failed to support the notion of youthful conceptions having stronger health consequences for Baby Boomers. Examining more cohorts over longer timespans would illuminate how developmental aging processes intersect with sociohistorical contexts to shape the subjective life course and its health consequences.

The “aging of the Baby Boomers,” an increasingly common phrase heard in academic political, and public discourses, captures a cultural contradiction arising from this cohort’s “forever young” identity (Gullette, 1997). Youthful connotations have accompanied this cohort since its emergence, when “an unusually 109 Ó 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/AG.79.2.b http://baywood.com

110 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

small generation of parents produced an unusually large generation of children” (Carlson, 1979, p. 529). The resulting shift in population age co-occurred with increasing rates of economic specialization and technological development to promote greater segregation of the young from older age groups. These trends contributed to the emergence of an adolescent subculture that left a youthful imprint on the collective and individual identities of cohort members (Coleman, 1961; Mannheim, 1952; Ryder, 1974). This youth-oriented generation now finds itself navigating the terrain of “old age,” a stage culturally-defined as the opposite of youth (Biggs, 2004). This contradiction raises questions about Baby Boomers’ subjective experience of aging. How do they view the life course and their location in it as they move through their later years? And are there consequences of these views for their health? Studies have examined age-related shifts in subjective experiences of aging and their health consequences, though Baby Boomers’ experiences (as well as cohort comparisons more generally) have received limited attention. We address this issue by examining a component of Baby Boomers’ subjective experiences of aging—their conceptions of the life course (i.e., the subjective life course). We use the term “subjective life course” to denote individuals’ views of the life course, including its structure and timing and their advancing location within it. Components of these views include both self-referential conceptions, such as age identity, and generalized conceptions, including perceived boundaries of life stages. These conceptions are theoretically linked, owing to the social nature of our self-conceptions: they are influenced by comparisons we make with others, including individuals, groups, and idealized images (Festinger, 1954; Gecas, 1982). Empirical research provides further evidence of a linkage between these components of the subjective life course, with patterns suggesting that individuals conceptualize a more elongated life course as they grow older. We use this term to refer to a longer length, reflected in the adoption of younger identities and postponement of the perceived markers of life stages, like middle and old age (Barrett, 2003; Bowling, See-Tai, Ebrahim, Gabriel, & Solanki, 2005; Kaufman & Elder, 2003; Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, Kotter-Grühn, & Smith, 2008; Kuper & Marmot, 2003; Lachman, Lewkowicz, Marcus, & Peng, 1994; Logan, Ward, & Spitze, 1992; Seccombe & Ishii-Kuntz, 1991; Toothman & Barrett, 2011). In contrast, a more compressed (or foreshortened) subjective life course refers to a shorter length, indicated by older identities and a view of transitions as occurring earlier. Compressed life course conceptions have been associated with worse health, including greater risk of disability and hypertension (Demakakos, Gjonca, & Nazroo, 2007), worse coping with illness (Boehmer, 2007), and greater functional limitations (Kuper & Marmot, 2003). Within this literature, no studies of which we are aware focus on the Baby Boomers, a cohort for whom the adoption of an elongated subjective life course— and its beneficial health consequences—may be particularly pronounced. Another limitation is the tendency to use cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

111

that would illuminate how the subjective life course and its health effects shift as individuals age, including possible variation across cohorts. Using two waves of panel data spanning a decade, we compare Baby Boomers’ changes in life course conceptions, in particular their age identity and views of midlife timing, with those of an earlier cohort. We then compare the cohorts on the health consequences of these conceptions. Age-Related Changes in the Subjective Life Course Several explanations have been offered for the tendency of individuals to maintain increasingly youthful, age-discrepant identities and postpone perceived markers of life stages as they grow older. One explanation centers on the healthenhancing effects of positive illusions: holding more youthful identities and viewing life stages as occurring later as one progresses through middle and later life can promote more positive self-evaluations, given the cultural devaluation of older adults (Gana, Alaphilippe, & Bailly, 2004; Taylor & Brown, 1988). A similar argument defines youthful identities and conceptions of postponed life stages as a form of “age denial” that should become pronounced with advancing age (Rubin & Berntsen, 2006). While these perspectives predict shifts in the subjective life course only in middle and later life as devalued stages are approached, a developmental view emphasizes change over the entire life course. This view finds support in research revealing that young adults feel marginally older than their age, but middle-aged and older adults maintain age identities approximately 20% more youthful than their actual age (Rubin & Berntsen, 2006). Another perspective—the life course framework—raises the possibility that life course conceptions not only change as individuals age and approach differentially valued periods of life but also are influenced by broader historical forces creating inter-cohort variation in aging experiences (Elder & Johnson, 2002). We argue that inadequate attention has been given to differences across cohorts, each with their own accumulated experiences shaping members’ subjective aging (Mannheim, 1952). The Baby Boom cohort is interesting to examine, given its connotation with not only youth but also “change, challenge, and transformation” (Gilleard & Higgs, 2002, p. 376). Seeking new pathways through later life, Baby Boomers may have particularly youthful identities and postponed views of the timing of life stages—and the health consequences of these conceptions may be more pronounced than in earlier, and perhaps subsequent, cohorts. However, these patterns may vary for Early and Late Boomers, whose different economic and social opportunities have produced different life course trajectories. Educational attainment was particularly striking among Late Boomers, the first cohort in which women attained higher levels of education than men; however, Late Boomers also have distinctive family patterns, including higher prevalence of first births while unmarried, that have contributed, along with broad economic shifts, to their higher risk of poverty, compared with Early Boomers (Hughes & O’Rand, 2004).

112 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

The unique experiences of cohorts may have implications for their subjective experiences of aging, including self-referential and generalized conceptions of the life course. Within the subjective life course literature, age identity has received greater attention than more generalized conceptions, such as views of middle age, which have been the focus of fewer studies than either young adulthood (e.g., Arnett, 1997; Johnson, Berg, & Sirotzki, 2007) or old age (e.g., Barrett & von Rohr, 2008; Seccombe & Ishii-Kuntz, 1991; Zepelin, Sills, & Heath, 1986). However, conceptions of middle age are likely to be revealing of Baby Boomers’ youthful orientation, given cohort members’ movement toward the traditional “old age” marker of 65. To delay their entry into this devalued life stage, Baby Boomers may construct a view of middle age as occurring later—and postpone this age as they grow older. Conceptions of an elongated life course, including a later middle age, are encouraged by not only demographic trends, in particular, the extension of life expectancy and delay of disability (Schoeni, Freedman, & Wallace, 2001), but also cultural ambiguity regarding the edges of this life stage. Compared with other life stages, the boundaries of middle age are less clearly marked by the acquisition or loss of roles or rights, yielding individuals greater latitude in views of its timing. This process is aided by the increasing individualization and fragmentation of later life that creates a cultural representation of aging as more of an individual than collective experience (Gilleard, 2005). As they age, Baby Boomers may exploit both of these conditions—the ambiguous boundaries around middle age and cultural emphasis on individual agency—in ways that enhance their self-conceptions and health. However, differences between Early and Late Baby Boomers may exist. The more disadvantaged Late Boomers may not adopt as elongated life course conceptions as Early Boomers, a prediction derived from research reporting that lower socioeconomic status predicts older identities and earlier age deadlines for life course transitions and life stages (Barrett, 2003; Kuper & Marmot, 2003; Liefbroer & Billari, 2010; Toothman & Barrett, 2011). Health Consequences of the Subjective Life Course More elongated views of the life course predict better health across a range of measures. Feeling youthful is associated with lower mortality (Kotter-Grühn, Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, Gerstorf, & Smith, 2009; Uotinen, Rantanen, & Suutama, 2005), reduced risk of disability and hypertension (Demakakos et al., 2007), better coping with illness (Boehmer, 2007), and more optimistic dispositions about cognitive aging (Schafer & Shippee, 2010a). Health also is associated with more generalized conceptions of the life course. Viewing middle and old age as ending at older ages predicts improved health, as measured by better self-rated health, fewer functional limitations, and lower risk of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease (Demakakos et al., 2007; Kuper & Marmot, 2003). However, the relationship between the subjective life course and health is bidirectional, with

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

113

research suggesting that poor health predicts a more compressed subjective life course, as indicated by older identities and viewing life stages as beginning earlier (Barrett, 2003; Degges-White & Myers, 2005; Demakakos et al., 2007; Hubley & Russell, 2009; Kaufman & Elder, 2003; Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn et al., 2008; Kuper & Marmot, 2003; Logan et al., 1992; Schafer & Shippee, 2010b; Toothman & Barrett, 2011). Studies on the link between health and the subjective life course are limited in much the same way as studies examining age-related patterns in the subjective life course. They give little attention to historical timing, leaving unanswered questions about variation across cohorts in the effect of the subjective life course on health in later life. This neglect resonates with the observation that social science research and media coverage of the Baby Boomers tends to focus on economics, paid work (and retirement), and healthcare—with limited attention to the extent of Baby Boomers’ identification as a “youth culture” and its implication for these macro-level issues (Phillipson, Leach, Money, & Biggs, 2008). Another limitation is the use of cross-sectional data or panel data with relatively short time-frames (e.g., Boehmer, 2007; Demakakos et al., 2007; for an exception, see Schafer & Shippee, 2010a). The literature also focuses less on generalized conceptions of life course timing than self-conceptions. As a result, we have little understanding of how the subjective life course shapes health, including possible variation across its dimensions—and across cohorts. Studies addressing these issues would contribute to ongoing discussions of the health of Baby Boomers, relative to earlier cohorts. The conclusions of research are mixed: while Baby Boomers fare better in terms of mortality rates and life expectancy forecasts, they fare worse on both self-rated health (particularly in recent years) and a range of health risk factors, including obesity, high cholesterol, alcohol consumption, and exercise (King, Matheson, Chirina, Shankar, & Broman-Fulks, 2013; Martin, Freedman, Schoeni, & Andreski, 2009; Olshansky, Goldman, Zheng, & Rowe, 2009). Their worse health is surprising, given Baby Boomers’ public health advantages relative to earlier cohorts. However, it raises the possibility that Baby Boomers’ subjective life course may not be as elongated as the cohort’s youthful connotations would predict. Using two waves of data spanning a decade, we compare shifts in the subjective life course and their health consequences among Early and Late Baby Boomers (born 1946-1955 and 1956-1964, respectively) with those of an earlier cohort (born 1929-1945). The earlier cohort is the Lucky Few, a cohort differing from the Baby Boomers in size and historical experiences. The Lucky Few cohort is smaller, with members facing either the Great Depression or World War II in their younger years. They then experienced the postwar prosperity that led to relatively high standards of living in their later years, evidenced by their earlier retirement and better health than preceding cohorts (Carlson, 2008). In contrast, Baby Boomers’ economic trajectory has been more downward sloping, particularly among the Late Boomers (Hughes & O’Rand, 2004). While their childhoods

114 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

were imbued with the material benefits and social optimism of the postwar period, early and middle adulthood was impacted by the Vietnam War and oil price shocks of the 1970s, with consequences compounded by competition derived from the cohort’s large size (Carlson, 2008; Easterlin, 1980). The divergent experiences of these cohorts provide a useful site for examining how sociohistorical contexts shape the subjective life course and its health consequences. They pose interesting questions: are Baby Boomers’ conceptions of the life course and their locations in it more consistent with their “forever young” identity or their more disadvantaged socioeconomic trajectory, relative to the preceding cohort of older adults? Further, what are the implications of this inter- (and perhaps intra-) cohort variation for Baby Boomers’ health? Our study focuses on two components of the subjective life course (i.e., age identity and views of the timing of middle age) and a range of health measures, including subjective and objective indicators of physical health. We also examine a health-related behavior—exercise—because behavioral consequences have been underexamined in the subjective life course literature. Our predictions regarding behavioral consequences derive from two sources—the literature finding beneficial health effects of elongated life course conceptions and research reporting that having more positive views of aging predicts more frequent exercise (Wurm, Tomasik, & Tesch-Römer, 2010). We test two hypotheses. The first predicts that Baby Boomers have more elongated life course conceptions than the Lucky Few, indicated in cross-sectional analyses by younger identities and older boundaries of middle age and in longitudinal analyses by the adoption of more age-discrepant identities and greater postponement of age boundaries between the waves. The second hypothesis predicts that the relationship between elongated life course conceptions and better health is more pronounced among Baby Boomers, compared with earlier cohort members, indicated in longitudinal analyses by a stronger effect of baseline conceptions and change in conceptions on health 10 years later. DESIGN AND METHODS Data and Sample We use data from both waves of Midlife in the United States (MIDUS), a nationally representative survey of the non-institutionalized U.S. population with landline phones (Brim, Baltes, Bumpass, Cleary, Featherman, Hazzard, et al., 1995-1996; Ryff, Almeida, Ayanian, Carr, Cleary, Coe, et al., 2004-2006). Generated by random-digit dialing, the main sample ranges in age from 25 to 74 at baseline. Surveys consisted of a phone interview (70% response rate) and a mailed questionnaire (87% response rate), yielding an overall response rate of 61%. Of the Wave 1 sample (n = 3,032), 69% were re-interviewed at Wave 2 (n = 2,103). We limit our analysis to those who completed both the phone

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

115

interview and mail-in questionnaire at Wave 2 and have valid values on all dependent variables at both waves. We also omit 40 respondents who were outliers (i.e., three or more standard deviations from the mean) on any of the three subjective life course indicators: age identity and start and end of middle age. We further limit our sample to individuals born before 1964, yielding a final sample size of 422 Early Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1955), 311 Late Baby Boomers (born between 1956 and 1964), and 524 members of the earlier cohort (Lucky Few, born between 1929 and 1945). MIDUS is ideal for our study because it is one of the few longitudinal, nationally-representative datasets containing measures of both self-referential and more generalized conceptions of the life course, as well as measures that tap various dimensions of physical health. However, we note that it does not include the multiple waves needed to fully disentangle cohort, period, and age effects. Despite this limitation, we argue that our comparison of two cohorts over two waves spanning a decade provides clues into the historically-specific nature of subjective experiences of aging and their health consequences. Measures All variables used in this study are described in Table 1. We analyze five health measures: self-rated overall health, self-rated physical health, chronic conditions, functional limitations, and frequency of moderate physical activity. We examine two components of the subjective life course: a self-conception (i.e., age identity) and a more general conception (i.e., views of when middle age begins and ends). Age identity is indicated by the difference between felt and chronological age, divided by chronological age. This operationalization takes into account not only the different meanings that discrepancies between felt and actual age have at different ages but also the finding that, although the absolute discrepancy tends to be greater at older ages, the proportional discrepancy remains constant beyond age 40, indicating that people feel about 20% younger than their actual ages (Rubin & Berntsen, 2006). Conceptions of the timing of middle age are measured using four survey items asking the ages at which middle age begins and ends for women and men. We retain the gender-specific focus of these items because prior research reveals gender differences in conceptions of middle age. Middle age is viewed by both genders as occurring earlier for women than men; however, women report older ages than do men for the start and end of this life stage (Toothman & Barrett, 2011). We operationalize the start and end of middle age as the ages given for one’s own gender. To assess the health effects of change in these conceptions, longitudinal analyses include change scores (i.e., Wave 2–Wave 1) for each of our main predictors. Control variables include gender, race, education, household income, homeownership, and employment, marital, and parental statuses. Missing values on main predictors and

Description 1 = Female; 0 = male; Wave 1 1 = Non-white; 0 = white; Wave 1 Years completed; range = 3.5 to 22; Wave 1 Sum of annual earnings from the following sources: self, spouse, other family member, Social Security, gov’t assistance, and other sources; in units of $10,000; range = 0 to 36.5; Wave 1 1 = Employed full- or part-time; 0 = not employed; Wave 1 1 = Owns home; 0 = does not own home; Wave 1 1 = Married; 0 = unmarried; Wave 1 1 = Parent; 0 = not a parent; Wave 1

Variable

Female

Non-white

Education

Household income

Employed

Homeowner

Married

Parent

14.19 (2.37)

14.60 (2.71) 7.92 (5.51)a

0.88 (0.33)a

0.13 (0.33)a 0.68 (0.47) 0.86 (0.35)a,c

14.33 (2.97) 7.06 (5.59)b

0.75 (0.43)b,c

0.36 (0.48)b,c 0.70 (0.46) 0.92 (0.28)b,c

0.72 (0.45)a,b

0.69 (0.46)

0.11 (0.31)a

0.84 (0.36)a

7.14 (5.47)

0.09 (0.29)

0.08 (0.27)

0.07 (0.26)

0.53 (0.50)

0.57 (0.50)

Early Baby Boomers Late Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1955) (b. 1956-1964) n = 422 n = 311 0.51 (0.50)

Lucky Few (b. 1929-1945) n = 254

Table 1. Summary of Variables

116 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

2.20 (6.70)

59.93 (6.99)a,c

2.02 (6.87)

61.28 (6.88)b,c

EntranceWave 2 – EntranceWave 1; Higher values reflect reports of later entrance (in years) into middle age between waves; range = –25 to 23 For women, age (in years) reported for the following: “At what age are most women no longer middle aged?”; For men, age (in years) reported for the following: “At what age are most men no longer middle aged?”; range = 34 to 83 ExitWave 2 – ExitWave 1; Higher values reflect reports of later exit (in years) from middle age between waves; range = –33 to 37

DEntrance

Middle age exit

DExit

3.24 (8.29)

2.78 (7.70)

43.92 (6.40)a,c

45.60 (6.31)b,c

For women, age (in years) reported for the following: “In your opinion, at what age do most women enter middle age?” For men, age reported for the following: “In your opinion, at what age do most men enter middle age?” Range = 24 to 65; Wave 1

Middle age entrance

–0.03 (0.20)a

0.01 (0.14)b,c

W2 age identity – W1 age identity; higher values reflect acquiring older identities between waves; range = –1.52 to 1.85

–0.16 (0.21)a,c

DAge identity

–0.19 (0.14)b,c

(Subjective age – chronological age)/chronological age; Subjective age is the response to question: “. . . What age do you feel most of the time?” Higher values on age identity represent older identities; range = –0.9 to 1.9; Wave 1

Age identity

2.52 (7.98)

57.54 (7.44)a,b

1.96 (6.61)

42.40 (5.93)a,b

–0.05 (0.27)a

–0.10 (0.25)a,b

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT / 117

Description “How would you rate your health these days?”; 0 (worst) to 10 (best); Wave 1 “How would you rate your health these days?”; 0 (worst) to 10 (best); Wave 2 “In general, would you say your physical health is . . .”; 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent); Wave 1 “In general, would you say your physical health is . . .”; 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent); Wave 2 Number of chronic conditions experienced in the past year; range = 0 to 21; Wave 1 Number of chronic conditions experienced in the past year; range = 0 to 29; Wave 2 Two-item mean scale (a = .72) assessing difficulty in bathing/dressing and walking a block; 1 (none) to 4 (a lot); Wave 1

Variable

W1 Overall health

W2 Overall health

W1 Physical health

W2 Physical health

W1 Chronic conditions

W2 Chronic conditions

W1 Functional limitations

3.59 (0.96)

3.64 (0.94)a

2.22 (2.16)a

2.27 (2.15)a

1.10 (0.38)

3.52 (0.95)c

3.48 (1.01)b,c

2.83 (2.77)b,c

2.91 (2.74)b,c

1.13 (0.41)

1.11 (0.41)

1.92 (2.42)a

2.02 (2.38)a

3.63 (0.94)a

3.66 (0.84)a

7.41 (1.52)

7.32 (1.53)

7.35 (1.67)

7.57 (1.55)

7.46 (1.52)

Early Baby Boomers Late Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1955) (b. 1956-1964) n = 422 n = 311 7.40 (1.44)

Lucky Few (b. 1929-1945) n = 254

Table 1. (Cont’d.)

118 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

Two-item mean scale (a = .85) assessing frequency of moderate activity in summer and winter; 1 (never) to 6 (several times a week/more); Wave 1 Six-item mean scale (a = .86) assessing frequency of moderate activity performed for work, chores, and leisure in summer and winter; 1 (never) to 6 (several times a week/more); Wave 2

W1 Moderate activity

W2 Moderate activity

1.21 (0.53)a

5.35 (0.92)a

3.74 (1.37)a

1.34 (0.66)b,c

5.19 (1.10)b,c

3.15 (1.41)b,c

Notes: Groups mean differences calculated by one-way ANOVAs; standard deviations in parentheses. aDiffers from Lucky Few; bdiffers from Early Boomers; cdiffers from Late Boomers; p < .05.

Two-item mean scale (a = .67) assessing difficulty in bathing/dressing and walking a block; 1 (none) to 4 (a lot); Wave 2

W2 Functional limitations

3.70 (1.41)a

5.48 (0.85)a

1.14 (0.48)a

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT / 119

120 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

controls are imputed using means. Data is imputed on less than 1% of the sample on each measure, with the exception of income (20%).1 Analytic Strategy To examine cohort differences in the subjective life course, we conduct two sets of ordinary least squares regression analyses. Cross-sectional analyses allow us to examine cohort differences in life course conceptions at Wave 1. Longitudinal analyses regress Wave 2 life course conceptions on cohort membership and Wave 1 conceptions, controlling on Wave 1 health and other associated factors, such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status (e.g., Barrett, 2003; Kaufman & Elder, 2003; Logan et al., 1992; Schafer & Shippee, 2010b; Toothman & Barrett, 2011; Westerhof & Barrett, 2005; Zepelin et al., 1986).2 These static change or conditional change panel models include the lagged dependent variable as a predictor (Finkel, 1995). They permit an examination of differences between Baby Boomers and the earlier cohort in changes in life course conceptions between waves, controlling on Wave 1 conceptions. In all regression analyses, the Lucky Few are treated as the reference group; however, significant differences between Early and Late Baby Boomers are noted in the text. Longitudinal analyses address cohort differences in the link between the subjective life course and health. OLS regression models examine the effect of Wave 1 life course conceptions and change in these conceptions between the waves on Wave 2 health, controlling on Wave 1 health. For four of the five health measures, these analyses are static change or conditional change models, with coefficients indicating change in health between the waves. For one of the health measures (i.e., moderate activity), indicators in Waves 1 and 2 differ, so coefficients are interpreted as activity levels at Wave 2, controlling on Wave 1 activity, rather than representing change between the waves. To examine whether health effects of life course conceptions differ by cohort, we run models that include interaction terms (e.g., Wave 1 age identity*Early Boomer; change in age identity between waves*Early Boomer). All analyses use survey weights provided by MIDUS to correct for sampling error. RESULTS Table 1 compares the cohorts on all study variables. More differences are found between Lucky Few and Early or Late Boomers than between Early and Late Boomers. Compared with the Lucky Few, Baby Boomers have higher 1 We ran models with a dichotomous variable coded 1 for respondents with imputed values on income to assess whether missing values affected our results. This flag variable was not significant in any of our models. 2 Chronological age is not included in models, as it highly correlates with cohort (–0.83).

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

121

household income and are more likely to be employed and have children, but they are less likely to own their homes. They also have more compressed views of the life course, as indicated by older (or less youthful) identities and younger age boundaries for middle age. The Lucky Few feel 20% younger than their actual age (consistent with Rubin and Bernsten, 2006), while Early and Late Boomers feel only 16% and 10% younger, respectively. Similarly, entrance and exit ages from middle age are significantly older for the Lucky Few (i.e., 46 and 61) than Early and Late Boomers (i.e., 44 and 60; 42 and 58). Differences also are found among Baby Boomers, with Early Boomers reporting significantly more youthful identities and later boundaries for middle age than Late Boomers. Compared with age identities and middle age boundaries at Wave 1, fewer cohort differences are found in change in life course conceptions between Waves 1 and 2. All three cohorts postpone the boundaries of middle age to a similar degree—approximately 2 to 3 years. However, differences are found in changes in age identity between waves, with Early and Late Boomers adopting more youthful identities than do the Lucky Few. Given the age differences between cohorts, health differences are as expected. More differences are found between the Lucky Few and either the Early or Late Boomers than between Early and Late Boomers. Compared with later cohorts, the Lucky Few have worse physical health, more chronic conditions and functional limitations, and less frequent physical activity. Cohorts do not differ, however, in their overall health ratings. Table 2 reports cross-sectional and longitudinal regressions of life course conceptions on cohort membership. Contrary to our hypothesis predicting conceptions of a more elongated life course among Boomers, cross-sectional analyses reveal that, compared with the earlier cohort, both Early and Late Baby Boomers not only feel older but also report the start and end of middle age as occurring between 2 and 3 years earlier. Additional analyses reveal significant intra-cohort variation, with Late Boomers reporting older identities and earlier start and end of middle age, compared with Early Boomers. Providing further evidence of Baby Boomers’ conception of a more compressed life course than the earlier cohort, longitudinal analyses reveal that both Early and Late Baby Boomers report less postponement of the start and end of middle age between the waves, with intra-cohort comparison revealing less postponement among Late than Early Boomers. However, neither cohort nor intra-cohort variation is found in shifts in age identity between the waves. The results of models examining the effect of the subjective life course on health are presented in Table 3. Analyses revealed that younger age identities predict better health across all five measures examined. In contrast, conceptions of the timing of middle age are only associated with three health measures: overall health, chronic conditions, and moderate physical activity. Controlling on Wave 1 health, viewing middle age as ending later predicts better overall health and higher levels of physical activity at Wave 2. A different relationship is found between

122 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

Table 2. OLS Regression of Life Course Conceptions on Social Factors and Health Cross-sectional Age identity

Start of middle ageb

End of middle ageb

Longitudinal W2 W2 Start W2 End Age of middle of middle identity ageb ageb –0.96† (0.58)

–1.82** (0.58)

–1.89** (0.55)

–3.31*** (0.61)

0.00 (0.01)

1.38** (0.40)

1.05 (0.47)

–1.74 (1.14)

0.02 (0.02)

0.19 (0.91)

–0.98 (0.98)

–0.01 (0.08)

0.23** (0.09)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.07)

0.17† (0.09)

0.00 (0.00)

0.03 (0.04)

0.07† (0.04)

0.00 (0.00)

0.05 (0.04)

0.08 (0.05)

–0.04† (0.02)

0.22 (0.59)

–0.07 (0.65)

–0.01 (0.02)

0.81 (0.58)

0.86 (0.64)

Homeowner (0,1) –0.01 (0.02)

0.18 (0.56)

0.42 (0.62)

0.01 (0.01)

0.32 (0.53)

–0.24 (0.60)

Married (0,1)

0.01 (0.02)

0.74 (0.50)

0.41 (0.59)

0.00 (0.01)

0.24 (0.52)

–0.59 (0.60)

Parent (0,1)

0.00 (0.02)

–0.66 (0.56)

–0.12 (0.69)

0.03 (0.02)

–0.04 (0.55)

0.22 (0.62)

Overall healthd

–0.04*** 0.18 (0.16) (0.01)

0.33† (0.18)

–0.01† (0.00)

0.24 (0.15)

0.06 (0.17)

Chronic conditionse

0.01** (0.00)

–0.07 (0.09)

–0.03 (0.10)

0.00 (0.00)

–0.01 (0.09)

–0.13 (0.11)

–1.99*** –1.44** (0.54) (0.50)

–0.01 (0.01)

Early Baby Boomera (0,1)

0.03* (0.01)

Late Baby Boomera (0,1)

0.08*** –3.49*** –3.42*** 0.02 (0.60) (0.01) (0.53) (0.02)

Female (0,1)

–0.02 (0.01)

2.50*** 1.57** (0.49) (0.43)

Non-white (0,1)

–0.05† (0.03)

–0.47 (0.93)

Educationb

0.00 (0.00)

Household incomec Employed (0,1)

Life course conceptions (W1) Adjusted R2

0.32*** 0.42*** 0.44*** (0.04) (0.04 (0.04) 0.15

0.07

0.07

0.16

0.22

0.23

aLucky Few = reference category; bin years; cin units of $10,000; dhigher values = better health; ehigher values = more chronic conditions; n = 1257; †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

123

Table 3. Longitudinal Regression of Health on Life Course Conceptions Overall healthb

Self-rated physical healthb

Functional limitationsc

Chronic conditionsc

Early Baby Boomera (0,1)

0.13 (0.11)

0.14* (0.06)

–0.13** (0.05)

–0.27† (0.15)

0.51*** (0.11)

Late Baby Boomera (0,1)

0.29* (0.12)

0.12† (0.07)

–0.29*** (0.05)

–0.45* (0.18)

0.59*** (0.13)

Female (0,1)

0.08 (0.09)

0.11* (0.05)

0.05 (0.03)

–0.02 (0.14)

–0.24** (0.09)

Non-white (0,1)

–0.14 (0.17)

–0.23* (0.10)

–0.09 (0.06)

0.03 (0.27)

–0.30† (0.18)

Educationd

0.05*** (0.01)

0.04*** (0.01)

–0.03*** (0.01)

–0.02 (0.02)

0.02 (0.02)

Household incomee

0.01 (0.01)

0.01† (0.01)

–0.01* (0.00)

–0.03* (0.01)

0.01 (0.01)

Employed (0,1)

0.19 (0.13)

0.11† (0.07)

–0.06 (0.05)

–0.50* (0.22)

0.32* (0.13)

Homeowner (0,1)

0.29** (0.11)

0.05 (0.07)

–0.05 (0.05)

0.07 (0.16)

–0.10 (0.11)

Married (0,1)

0.10 (0.11)

0.04 (0.07)

–0.05 (0.05)

0.03 (0.17)

0.02 (0.12)

Parent (0,1)

–0.21† (0.12)

–0.15* (0.07)

0.00 (0.04)

0.01 (0.20)

0.01 (0.13)

Age identity

–1.87*** (0.35)

–0.90*** (0.17)

0.59*** (0.16)

2.16*** (0.48)

–0.99** (0.29)

DAge identity

–2.04*** (0.34)

–0.73*** (0.18)

0.55*** (0.15)

1.50** (0.48)

–0.61* (0.25)

Start of middle aged

0.00 (0.01)

0.00 (0.01)

0.00 (0.00)

0.03 (0.02)

–0.02* (0.01)

DStart middle aged

–0.02† (0.01)

0.00 (0.01)

0.00 (0.00)

0.03* (0.01)

0.00 (0.01)

End of middle aged

0.02* (0.01)

0.01 (0.00)

–0.01† (0.00)

–0.02 (0.02)

0.02* (0.01)

DEnd of middle aged

0.01† (0.01)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

–0.01 (0.01)

0.00 (0.01)

Health (W1)

0.50*** (0.04)

0.47*** (0.03)

0.44*** (0.07)

0.54*** (0.03)

0.27*** (0.05)

Adjusted R2

0.36

0.34

0.07

0.39

Moderate physical activityb

0.14

aLucky Few = reference category; bhigher values = better health and more frequent activity; chigher values = more functional limitations and chronic conditions; din years; ein units of $10,000; n = 1257; †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

124 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

physical activity and the start of middle age: reporting a younger age as the start of this life stage is associated with more frequent physical activity. Only one other relationship between start of middle age and health is significant, with results indicating that greater postponement of the start of middle age between waves predicts a higher level of chronic conditions at Wave 2. To test our hypothesis regarding cohort differences in the relationship between life course conceptions and health, we ran interactive models. Contrary to our expectation that associations would be stronger among the Baby Boomers, these models (available upon request) revealed no evidence that the association between life course conceptions and health differs for Baby Boomers compared with the earlier cohort. Only 2 of the 60 interactions tested reach significance at the .05 level; further, they fail to reach significance at the .0008 level required with Bonferroni adjustments made for multiple comparisons (p = (.05/60); Shaffer, 1995). DISCUSSION The Baby Boomers, a cohort long-associated with youth, now finds itself well into the second half of life—a reality raising intriguing questions about their subjective experience of aging. How do they view their own age, and the life course more generally, as they move through their later years? And are there consequences of these views for their health? Further, are Baby Boomers’ life course conceptions and their health effects distinct from the cohort preceding them? Research on age identity and views of life stages suggests that people tend to view the life course as more elongated as they age and these conceptions predict better health. However, little is known about how these patterns may vary across cohorts. We address this issue by examining a cohort for whom conceptions of an elongated life course may be particularly salient and have strong health effects. We also extend the prior work by employing longitudinal data spanning a relatively long time period (10 years) and examining both age identity and conceptions of midlife timing, along with a wide range of health measures. Our results reveal that Baby Boomers do alter their age identities and views of middle age as they grow older, suggesting an elongated conception of the life course. However, they do not hold particularly elongated views, contrary to the expectation derived from their cultural image as “forever young.” In fact, our cohort comparison suggests that this description better fits the earlier cohort—the “Lucky Few” who experienced unprecedented levels of health and economic well-being across adulthood. Our findings suggest that their good fortunes may extend to their subjective experiences of aging. Compared with members of the earlier cohort, Baby Boomers hold significantly less youthful identities and younger age boundaries for middle age. These patterns are particularly descriptive of Late Baby Boomers, findings consistent with their more disadvantaged socioeconomic position relative to Early Baby Boomers. Further, shifts in these

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

125

conceptions over the decade reveal a greater elongation of the subjective life course among the Lucky Few than either Early or Late Boomers. The finding that the Lucky Few delay age boundaries for midlife to a greater extent between waves than do the Baby Boomers is particularly striking, given that the earlier cohort is between 60 and 84 at Wave 2—largely past cultural age markers for this life stage. Although our study raises the possibility of cohort variation in the subjective life course, we are unable to rule out alternative explanations for the findings, namely those hinging on age effects. Interpreted as age rather than cohort effects, our finding of more elongated conceptions of the life course among the older respondents is consistent with prior work, typically interpreted as evidence of either age denial or developmental processes occurring with age (e.g., Barrett, 2003; Gana et al., 2004; Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn et al., 2008; Logan et al., 1992; Montepare, 2009; Rubin & Berntsen, 2006; Toothman & Barrett, 2011). A central limitation of our study, and many prior studies, is the inability to adjudicate these explanations, a task that requires data collected on multiple cohorts over long timespans. As Baby Boomers reach their 70s and 80s, comparisons of this cohort with the one preceding it will reveal whether they elongate their life course conceptions to a similar degree. Though speculative given our data limitations, our findings lead us to anticipate that Boomers in late life will be no more youth-oriented than the preceding cohort, and perhaps less so. Other findings also suggest that the Boomers’ experiences of subjective aging are not so distinctive: the consequences of these views for their health do not differ from those of the earlier cohort. Consistent with prior work, including the few studies using longitudinal data (Boehmer, 2007; Demakakos et al., 2007; Schafer & Shippee, 2010a), we find that reporting younger identities and more age-discrepant ones over time predicts better health. Both baseline and change in identity are significant predictors across all of the health indicators, suggesting that age identity has wide implications for physical well-being. In contrast with findings for age identity, results for midlife timing reveal fewer—and less consistent—connections with health. Results for overall health lend support to the argument that viewing middle age as occurring later—i.e., the life course as more elongated—predicts better health. In contrast, results for chronic conditions suggest the opposite: greater postponement of the start of middle age between waves predicts worse health. Contradictory findings also are observed for physical activity, with higher activity associated with viewing middle age as beginning earlier and ending later—i.e., occupying a longer portion of the lifespan. This pattern raises the possibility that conceptions of the overall length of middle age may be important predictors of some dimensions of health, perhaps behavioral ones like exercise. Further research is needed to understand not only the link between the subjective life course and health, across their various dimensions, but also its bi-directionality. Consistent with prior studies, we find evidence that better health promotes more elongated views of the life course and these views

126 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

enhance health. The magnitude and timing of these relationships will be illuminated by multi-wave data spanning middle and later life. Our study points to other directions for future work, centering on issues of variation across and within cohorts, with age, and across dimensions of life course conceptions and health. An understanding of shifts in life course conceptions and their health effects with age and across cohorts will require examinations of these relationships in data permitting age and cohort effects to be disentangled. Future studies also should explore other views of the life course, including self-referential conceptions, such as aging anxiety and subjective life expectancy, as well as generalized views of the timing of other life stages and transitions marking progression through the life course. Another area for research centers on explaining the psychosocial mechanisms linking various components of the subjective life course to health, including their relationship with other shifts in temporal perspectives with age (e.g., Carstensen, 2006). Further investigations within and across cohorts of elongated conceptions of the life course and their health consequences will illuminate how developmental aging processes intersect with sociohistorical contexts to shape the subjective experience of aging. REFERENCES Arnett, J. J. (1997). Young people’s conceptions of the transition to adulthood. Youth & Society, 29, 1-23. Barrett, A. E. (2003). Socioeconomic status and age identity: The role of dimensions of health in the subjective construction of age. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 52B, S101-S109. Barrett, A. E., & von Rohr, C. (2008). Gendered perceptions of aging: An examination of college students. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 67, 359-386. Biggs, S. (2004). Age, gender, narratives, and masquerades. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 45-58. Boehmer, S. (2007). Relationships between felt age and perceived disability, satisfaction with recovery, self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies. Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 895-906. Bowling, A., See-Tai, S., Ebrahim, S., Gabriel, Z., & Solanki, P. (2005). Attributes of age-identity. Ageing & Society, 2, 479-500. Brim, O. G., Baltes, P. B., Bumpass, L. L., Cleary, P. D., Featherman, D. L., Hazzard, W. R., et al. (1995-1996). National survey of midlife development in the United States (MIDUS), 1995-1996. [Computer file]. ICPSR02760-v6. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2010-01-06. Carlson, E. (1979). Divorce rate fluctuation as a cohort phenomenon. Population Studies, 33, 523-536. Carlson, E. (2008). The lucky few: Between the greatest generation and the baby boom. New York, NY: Springer Publishers. Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312, 1913-1915.

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

127

Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. New York, NY: Free Press. Degges-White, S., & Myers, J. E. (2005). Women at midlife: An exploration of chronological age, subjective age, wellness, and life satisfaction. Adultspan Journal, 5, 67-80. Demakakos, P., Gjonca, E., & Nazroo, J. (2007). Age identity, age perceptions, and health: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1114, 279-287. Easterlin, R. A. (1980). Birth and fortune: The impact of numbers on personal welfare. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Elder, G. H., Jr., & Johnson, M. K. (2002). The life course and aging: Challenges, lessons, and new directions. In R. A. Settersten, Jr. (Ed.), Invitation to the life course: Toward new understandings of later life (pp. 49-81). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gana, K., Alaphilippe, D., & Bailly, N. (2004). Positive illusions and mental and physical health in later life. Aging & Mental Health, 8, 58-64. Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33. Gilleard, C. (2005). Cultural approaches to the ageing body. In M. L. Johnson (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing (pp. 156-164). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Gilleard, C., & Higgs, P. (2002). The third age: Class, cohort, or generation? Ageing and Society, 22, 369-382. Gullette, M. (1997). Declining to decline: Cultural combat and the politics of the midlife. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia. Hubley, A. M., & Russell, L. B. (2009). Prediction of subjective age, desired age, and age satisfaction in older adults: Do some health dimensions contribute more than others? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 12-21. Hughes, M. E., & O’Rand, A. M. (2004). The lives and times of the baby boomers. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Johnson, M., Berg, J., & Sirotzki, T. (2007). Differentiation in self-perceived adulthood: Extending the confluence model of subjective age identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 243-261. Kaufman, G., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2003). Grandparenting and age identity. Journal of Aging Studies, 17, 269-282. Keyes, C., & Westerhof, G. (2012). Chronological and subjective age differences in flourishing mental health and major depressive episode. Aging and Mental Health, 16, 67-74. King, D. E., Matheson, E., Chirina, S., Shankar, A., & Broman-Fulks, J. (2013). The status of Baby Boomers’ health in the United States: The healthiest generation? JAMA Internal Medicine, 173, 385-386. Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, A., Kotter-Grühn, D., & Smith, J. (2008). Self-perceptions of aging: Do subjective age and satisfaction with aging change during old age? Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 63B, P377-P385. Kotter-Grühn, D., Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, A., Gerstorf, D., & Smith, J. (2009). Self-perceptions of aging predict mortality and change with approaching death: 16-year longitudinal results from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychology & Aging, 24, 654-667.

128 / BARRETT AND TOOTHMAN

Kuper, H., & Marmot, M. (2003). Intimations of mortality: Perceived age of leaving middle age as a predictor of future health outcomes within the Whitehall II study. Age and Ageing, 32, 178-184. Lachman, M. E., Lewkowicz, C., Marcus, A., & Peng, Y. (1994). Images of midlife development among young, middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Adult Development, 1, 201-211. Liefbroer, A. C., & Billari, F. C. (2010). Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behavior. Population, Space, and Place, 16, 287-305. Logan, J. R., Ward, R., & Spitze, G. (1992). As old as you feel: Age identity in middle and later life. Social Forces, 71, 451-467. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276-322). London, UK: Oxford University Press. Martin, L. G., Freedman, V. A., Schoeni, R. F., & Andreski, P. M. (2009). Health and functioning among baby boomers approaching 60. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 64B, 369-377. Montepare, J. M. (2009). Subjective age: Toward a guiding lifespan framework. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 42-46. Olshansky, S. J., Goldman, D. P., Zheng, Y., & Rowe, J. W. (2009). Aging in America in the twenty-first century: Demographic forecasts from the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on an Aging Society. The Milbank Quarterly, 87, 842-862. Phillipson, C., Leach, R., Money, A., & Biggs, S. (2008). Social and cultural constructions of ageing: The case of the baby boomers. Sociological Research Online, 13. Retrieved January 1, 2012 from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/3/5.html Rubin, D. C., & Berntsen, D. (2006). People over forty feel 20% younger than their age: Subjective age across the lifespan. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 776-780. Ryder, N. (1974). The demography of youth. In President’s Science Advisory Committee, Panel on Youth. Youth: Transition to adulthood. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology. Ryff, C., Almeida, D. M., Ayanian, J. S., Carr, D. S., Cleary, P. D., Coe, C., et al. (2004-2005). Midlife development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004-2006 [Computer file]. ICPSR04652-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-03-22. Schafer, M. H., & Shippee, T. P. (2010a). Age identity, gender, and perceptions of decline: Does feeling older lead to pessimistic dispositions about cognitive aging? Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 65B, 91-96. Schafer, M. H, & Shippee, T. P. (2010b). Age identity in context: stress and the subjective side of aging. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 245-264. Schoeni, R. F., Freedman, V. A., & Wallace, R. B. (2001). Persistent, consistent, widespread, and robust? Another look at recent trends in old-age disability. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B, S206-S218. Seccombe, K., & Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1991). Perceptions of problems associated with aging: Comparisons among four older age cohorts. The Gerontologist, 31, 527-533. Shaffer, J. P. (1995). Multiple hypothesis testing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 561-584. Siegel, M., Bradley, E. H., & Kasl, S. V. (2003). Self-rated life expectancy as a predictor of mortality: Evidence from the HRS and AHEAD surveys. Gerontology, 49, 265-271.

HOW DISTINCTIVE IS THE “FOREVER YOUNG” COHORT /

129

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210. Toothman, E., & Barrett, A. E. (2011). Mapping midlife: An examination of social factors shaping conceptions of the timing of middle age. Advances in Life Course Research, 16, 99-111. Uotinen, V., Rantanen, T., & Suutama, T. (2005). Perceived age as a predictor of old age mortality: A 13-year prospective study. Age and Ageing, 34, 368-372. Westerhof, G. J., & Barrett, A. E. (2005). Age identity and subjective well-being: A comparison of the United States and Germany. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 60B, S129-S136. Wurm, S., Tomasik, M. J., & Tesch-Römer, C. (2010). On the importance of a positive view on ageing for physical exercise among middle-aged and older adults: Crosssectional and longitudinal findings. Psychology & Health, 25, 25-42. Zepelin, H., Sills, R. A., & Heath, M. W. (1986). Is age becoming irrelevant? An exploratory study of perceived age norms. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 24, 241-256.

Direct reprint requests to: Anne Barrett Pepper Institute on Aging and Public Policy 636 W. Call St. Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306-1121 e-mail: [email protected]