Background:Four constructs are encompassed by the term “falls-related psychological concerns” (FrPC); “fear of falling” (FOF), “falls-related self-efficacy” (FSe), “balance confidence” (BC) and “outcome expectancy” (OE). FrPC are associated with negative consequences including physical, psychological, and social. Identifying factors associated with FrPC could inform interventions to reduce these concerns.Methods:Sixty-two empirical papers relating to psychological factors associated with FrPC in community-dwelling older people (CDOP) were reviewed. Four levels of evidence were used when evaluating the literature: good, moderate, tentative, and none.Results:Evidence that anxiety predicted FOF, BC, and OE was tentative. Moderate evidence was found for anxiety predicting FSe. Good evidence was found for depression predicting FSe. Moderate evidence was found for depression predicting both FOF and BC. No evidence was found for depression predicting OE. Tentative evidence was found for FSe predicting depression. Good and moderate evidence was found for quality of life (QoL) being predicted by FOF and BC respectively. Tentative evidence was found for FSe predicting QoL. Moderate evidence was found for QoL predicting both FSe and BC. No evidence was found for QoL predicting FOF. Good and moderate evidence was found for activity avoidance/restriction (AA/AR) being predicted by FOF and FSe respectively. Tentative evidence was found for BC and OE predicting AA/AR, as well as for AA/AR predicting FOF. Moderate evidence for activity level (AL) predicting FOF was identified, however the evidence of this predicting FSe and BC was tentative. Evidence for FOF, FSe, and BC predicting AL was tentative as was evidence to suggest FOF predicted coping.Conclusions:Mixed evidence has been found for the association of psychological factors in association with FrPCs. Future research should employ theoretically grounded concepts, use multivariate analysis and longitudinal designs.
These findings contribute to clarification of mixed previous evidence regarding the experience of emotional empathy in young versus older adulthood. We discuss the importance of considering additional subcomponents of empathy such as emotion regulation, while also accounting for the relevance of the empathy induction to each age group.
The process model of emotion regulation (ER) is based on stages in the emotion generative process at which regulation may occur. This meta-analysis examines age-related differences in the subjective, behavioral, and physiological outcomes of instructed ER strategies that may be initiated after an emotional event has occurred; attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Within-process strategy, stimulus type, and valence were also tested as potential moderators of the effect of age on ER. A systematic search of the literature identified 156 relevant comparisons from 11 studies. Few age-related differences were found. In our analysis of the subjective outcome of response modulation strategies, young adults used expressive enhancement successfully (g = 0.48), but not expressive suppression (g = 0.04). Response modulation strategies had a small positive effect among older adults, and enhancement vs suppression did not moderate this success (g = 0.31 and g = 0.10, respectively). Young adults effectively used response modulation to regulate subjective emotion in response to pictures (g = 0.41) but not films (g = 0.01). Older adults were able to regulate in response to both pictures (g = 0.26) and films (g = 0.11). Interestingly, both age groups effectively used detached reappraisal, but not positive reappraisal to regulate emotional behavior. We conclude that, in line with well-established theories of socioemotional aging, there is a lack of evidence for age differences in the effects of instructed ER strategies, with some moderators suggesting more consistent effectiveness for older compared to younger adults.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.