Impact of Age Views on Cognition: Experimental, Longitudinal, and Ecological Momentary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research on the impact of age views on cognition has seen a strong momentum in recent years, fitting the stereotype embodiment theory prediction that the stereotypes taken in from a culture can impact older persons‘ cognition. These studies utilize experimental, longitudinal, and ecological momentary assessments (EMA), as well as a wide reach of cognitive outcomes. This symposium starts with two experimental studies. One demonstrates that negative age stereotypes reduce cognitive processing in older consumers (Gröppel-Klein et al.). A second study strives to better understand the pathway by which age stereotypes influence cognitive outcomes by focusing on dysregulation of reward-seeking behaviors and the downregulation of the dopaminergic system (Robertson et al.). We next explore two longitudinal studies that reveal differential relations among views of aging and various cognitive indicators. The first study found that older persons with more positive age beliefs are less likely to develop dementia even in a high-risk gene subpopulation of older adults (Levy et al.). The second study examined the association between awareness of age-related changes and cognitive scores (Sabatini et al.) Finally, Lücke et al. examine in their EMA study with 6 measurement occasions per day across 7 days that such a fine-tuned seems not to clearly support a linkage among subjective age and working memory for which beginning but not consistent evidence has been reported previously. Brad Meisner will discuss contributions in the light of meta-analytic finding revealing that older persons‘ negative age stereotypes can impair whereas their positive age stereotypes can improve cognitive performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".