Madeline Nichols’s research while affiliated with Oregon State University and other places

Work-family conflict (WFC) is a potent stressor in midlife linked to numerous detrimental physical and mental health outcomes; however, less is known about its effects on cognitive health. Increasing research demonstrates the utility of intensive repeated measures designs to examine within-person variability in WFC and health. Therefore, the aims of the present study were (a) to examine within-person associations between daily WFC and cognitive interference and memory failures and (b) to test age and gender as moderators. The data come from 131 IT employees who participated in an eight-day daily diary in the Work, Family, & Health Study (Age M=45, SD=6.33; 45% women). We found both significant between- and within-person associations from our two-level multilevel models. On average, adults who had higher WFC experienced more cognitive interference, Est.=0.22, SE=.06, p<.001, and memory failures, Est.=0.41, SE=.09, p<.001. On days when adults experienced higher WFC than was typical for them, they experienced more cognitive interference, Est.=.10, SE=.03, p<.01, and memory failures, Est.=0.18, SE=.06, p<.01. Age moderated the association between average WFC and memory failures. Simple slopes tests showed significant positive associations for adults aged 35, Est.=0.86, SE=.20, p<.001, and 45 (the mean), Est.=2.15, SE=.70, p<.01, but not 55, Est.=0.11, SE=.15, p=.43. Gender was not a significant moderator. These preliminary results indicate that there is day-to-day variability in WFC and self-reported cognitive health, particularly for adults in their 30s and 40s. Learning more about days with high WFC could suggest strategies for daily interventions to minimize the impacts of WFC on cognitive health.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) is widely used in the study of well-being; however, its factor structure continues to be a source of debate (Wedderhoff et al., 2021). The present study examined the factor structure of the PANAS using data from the third wave of the National Study of Daily Experiences (NSDE; N=1176, Mage=62.48, SD=10.20, Range=43-91, %Female=57.38) in which participants indicated how much of the time they felt positive and negative emotions each day for eight days. We conducted two-level confirmatory factor analyses in MPlus informed by the 45-degree rotation hypothesis (Yik et al., 1999) that classifies emotion words by both valence (negative or positive) and activation (high or low). Results revealed that a five-factor structure at both the within and between levels exhibited good fit (χ2(188) = 989.76; p <.001; RMSEA = 0.02; CFI = 0.960; TLI = 0.949). These factors were: high activation negative (upset, angry, frustrated); negative (worthless, sad, hopeless, lonely); high activation positive (enthusiastic, attentive, proud, active, confident); positive (happy, cheerful); and low activation positive (calm, satisfied). Latent correlations indicated factor separation at both the within- and between-person levels (median absolute correlations of.44 and.60, respectively). These results emphasize the importance of considering both valence and activation in the study of daily affective well-being. The authors recommend that researchers using the PANAS consider the implications of valence and activation when examining associations between affect and health-related outcomes.

Emotion regulation is an important skill for adults to use in interpersonal situations; however, limited research has examined whether emotion regulation strategies vary by context or the potential influences these strategies have on daily affect. We examined the frequency of emotion regulation strategies used in work and family contexts and the extent to which these strategies predicted daily positive and negative affect (PA; NA). Middle-aged adults (N=27, Mage=60.15, SD=3.77; Female=91.67%) completed 7 daily diary surveys. In both contexts, adults most often reported modifying situations to be more positive and using situational approaches. At work, adults also frequently expressed their emotions; at home, they reported modifying situations to be less negative. Preliminary multilevel model results indicated that NA was significantly higher on days when individuals reported distracting themselves from work situations (Est.=7.36, p<.01), suppressing emotions at work (Est.=3.29, p<.01), or expressing emotions around family (Est.=4.41, p<.01) compared to days when they did not use these strategies; conversely, on days when individuals distracted themselves from family situations, they reported lower NA (Est. =-2.80, p=.03) than on days they did not. On average, people who modify family situations to be more positive report higher PA (Est.=6.73, p<.01) than those who do not. Our results suggest that there is daily variability in emotion regulation strategy use and consequential impacts on affectual wellbeing by context. Understanding which emotion regulation strategies yield the most benefit in different contexts may inform interventions targeting emotion regulation as a modifiable behavior to promote health and wellbeing in later life.

Midlife is an opportune time during which individuals can establish patterns of behavior (e.g., generativity) and self-regulatory processes (e.g., emotion regulation) that will optimize their psychological wellbeing and aging. We sought to test whether: 1.) generativity is directly associated with better self-acceptance, 2.) the effect of generativity is indirect and mediated by emotion regulation (i.e., cognitive reappraisal), and 3.) age moderates associations among generativity, cognitive reappraisal, and self-acceptance. Using data from the second and third waves of the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study (N=935, Mage=54.36, SD=11.05, Range = 34-83, 55.08% Female), results revealed that cognitive reappraisal (β= 0.07, p< .01) and older age (β= 0.06, p= .02) were associated with higher self-acceptance; however, generativity was not, and age did not predict generativity nor cognitive reappraisal. Generativity was associated with more frequent use of cognitive reappraisal (β= 0.16, p< .001), with cognitive reappraisal then significantly mediating the association between generativity and self-acceptance (Natural Indirect Effect= 0.02, SE= .01, p= .02). Age significantly interacted with generativity when predicting self-acceptance (β= 0.39, p= .02), such that the effect of generativity increased with age. These findings are important for reframing midlife as a critical developmental stage during which individuals can engage in behaviors and self-regulatory processes that optimize their self-acceptance throughout the aging process. As age did not moderate most associations, interventions could target generativity to promote effective emotion regulation and cognitive reappraisal to enhance self-acceptance across adulthood and into later life given its positive implications for wellbeing, health, and longevity.

Developmental theories suggest that midlife and older adulthood are stages in which individuals may begin to focus their time on contributing to society (Erikson, 1969). During these stages, individuals may engage in socially responsible behaviors that protect against negative affect resulting from a lower sense of purpose in later life (Greenfield & Marks, 2004). Social responsibility includes both subjective measures of an individual’s felt contribution to society (i.e., generativity) and objective measures reporting actual time volunteering in different settings (Rossi, 2001). We utilized data from the Midlife in the United States Refresher survey study and Biomarker Project (N=735, Mage=51.56, SD=13.59, 50.20% Male) to explore how self-perceptions of generativity and time spent volunteering predicted negative affect for individuals in midlife and older adulthood. Preliminary analyses indicate that higher generativity (p<.001) and older age (p<.001), but not average time spent volunteering, were associated with higher negative affect. Further, we considered age as a potential moderator for the associations between generativity, volunteering, and negative affect. Age significantly interacted with generativity (p<.01), such that the effects of generativity on reducing negative affect decrease with age. Age did not significantly interact with time spent volunteering. Discussion will focus on how actual engagement in socially responsible behaviors and perceived societal contributions might yield different outcomes regarding protection against negative affect in mid- and later-life. Future directions may include exploring daily indicators of time spent volunteering, generative beliefs, and affect.

Daily interpersonal stressors, such as arguments with spouses, are predictors for increased negative affect within the literature (Witzel & Stawski, 2021). Emotion work, or activities done to promote another’s positive emotional state, has been noted to have mixed effects on health and well-being (Umberson et al., 2020) and emotion work is more prevalent in times of increased stress (Rao, 2017). Moreover, with old age, individuals experience fewer daily interpersonal stressors (Witzel & Stawski, 2021). Using the 2015 wave of the Health and Relationships Study (Ncouples=756, Mage=48.22, Rangeage=35-65, Mmaritalduration=8.52; Umberson, 2015), we explored 1.) how daily arguments with spouses within diverse marriages were related to negative affect across 10 days and 2.) whether age and emotion work moderate these associations. HARP is a daily diary study exploring marriage and health in same-sex and different-sex marriages. Preliminary results using multilevel models suggest that individuals’ negative affect significantly increased on days they reported spousal arguments. The interaction between spousal arguments and emotion work was significant (p<.05); on days when individuals reported more emotion work, negative affective reactivity associated with spousal arguments was higher, compared to days when less emotion work was reported. No significant age differences were found. Discussion will focus on the import of spousal arguments and emotion work for shaping daily well-being, and their relevance throughout adulthood, midlife, and older age. Future work should explore how being the recipient of emotion work may buffer or exacerbate the associations between daily arguments and negative affect and potential gendered patterning therein.

The current study examines daily stress processes as risk factors for comprised mental health in midlife and later life, specifically for gender differences in depression risk. Using data from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study and the National Study of Daily Experiences (NSDE), we examine (1) gender differences in depression; (2) the prospective effects of differential exposure and affective responses on 10-year depression status; (3) gender differences in daily stress-depression links. Furthermore, we explore whether the protective factor of help-seeking behavior moderates the effects of daily stress on depression. Participants included 1289 (mage = 55; SD = 12; range = 34-83; 56% female) individuals who completed the second waves of MIDUS and the 8-day NSDE daily diary protocol and participated in the third wave of MIDUS approximately 10 years later. Respondents completed assessments of depression and their seeking assistance from a psychiatrist, mental health professional, counselor, or religious leader. Covariate-adjusted logistic regression analyses revealed increased odds of depression among women compared to men, but no significant gender difference after taking daily stress into account. Higher levels of stressor exposure, negative affect, and affective reactivity were associated with increased odds of depression for both men and women. Compared to those who did not engage in help-seeking behavior, those who did had significantly greater odds of depression, and there were asymmetric patterns of daily stress effects across groups. These findings highlight differential exposure, negative affect, and affective responses to daily stress as potentially accessible intervention targets for reducing stress in daily life and mitigating longer-term depression risk during mid- and later life.

Positive social relationships, such as high-quality marriages, are associated with better health, especially among older adults. Moreover, negative components in marriages (i.e., disagreements and associated emotional responses) are linked to negative outcomes such as marital disruption (McGonagle et al., 1993) and divorce (Markman et al., 2010). Factors such as marital conflicts and emotion expression threaten marital stability and health and have been shown to decrease with age and in collectivist cultures (i.e., Japan compared to U.S.; Kitayama et al., 2015; Matsunaga & Imahori, 2009). While anger has featured as a specific emotion associated with compromised health and marital quality (Carrère et al., 2005), less is known about how marital conflict and the expression of anger may contribute to marital instability in later life, or differences in these links across age and culture. Using data from married respondents participating in the second wave of the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS, n=750, Mage=55.18, SD=11.5, %Female=50.13%) study or first wave of the Midlife in Japan (MIDJA; n=706, Mage=55.26, SD=13.68, %Female=47.73%) studies, we examined associations between disagreements, anger expression, and marital risk. Preliminary analyses revealed that marital disagreements and anger expression were each associated with increased marital instability in both the MIDUS and MIDJA samples (ps<.05). Additionally, the effects of marital disagreements and anger expression did not differ between the two samples or as a function of age. Discussion will focus on the relevance of expression and regulation of emotions for understanding marital (in)stability in midlife and aging and across cultures.

Theories of age and emotional wellbeing posit that older age is associated with better affective well-being through avoidance or minimization of distressing experiences and prioritizing positive experiences and emotions. To test these theories, researchers have examined change in affect (i.e., reactivity) associated with negative interpersonal experiences in daily diary studies, given the compromising effects these interpersonal stressors exert on daily affect. In contrast, age differences in the potential affect-enhancing effects of positive interpersonal experiences have been comparatively neglected. Using the second wave of the National Study of Daily Experiences, we evaluated age differences in the frequency of daily negative and positive interpersonal interactions, as well as the affective responses to these interpersonal interactions. Positive and negative affect, as well as negative and positive interpersonal interactions were assessed on eight consecutive evenings. Analyses included 818 participants (Mage=53.3, SD=11.8, Range=34-83; 60% female) who experienced both negative and positive interpersonal interactions during the 8-day protocol. Preliminary results revealed increased frequency of negative interpersonal interactions and decreased frequency of positive interpersonal interactions with age (ps<.01). Further, negative interpersonal interactions were associated with increases in negative affect and decreases in positive affect (ps<.01), while positive interpersonal interactions were associated only with increased positive affect (p<.01). Finally, modest evidence of age-related reductions in the affective impact of negative, but not positive, interpersonal interactions emerged (p=.03). Discussion will focus on how studies of interpersonal interactions in daily life can inform theories of aging and promote emotional wellbeing throughout adulthood and later life.