Positive affect predicts everyday problem-solving ability in older adults

Abstract

Objectives: Increased symptom endorsement on the short form of the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale has been previously associated with lower everyday problem-solving (EPS) ability in older adults. However, given the multifactorial and complex nature of depressive symptoms, it remains unclear whether certain symptoms/aspects of depression account for this relationship. We examined established factor scores on the full version of the CES-D to assess their utility as predictors of EPS in an older adult cohort.

Methods: Community-dwelling older adults (n = 103; age: 51–91) were administered the CES-D along with a measure of EPS ability assessing both social and practical EPS. Regression analyses were used to determine the relationships between variables.

Results: Analyses revealed that increased CES-D scores predicted worse EPS ability in older adults (β = −.17, p < .05) beyond the effects of age, gender, and education. Regression analyses examining each CES-D factor score revealed that decreased positive affect (loss of hope/enjoyment in life; β = −.21, p < .01) remained the only significant predictor of decreased overall EPS scores beyond demographic variables, while depressed affect, interpersonal, and somatic factors were not significant predictors. Positive affect predicted both practical, as well as social EPS scores.

Conclusions: Current results extend previous findings by showing that the relationship between increased depressive symptoms and decreased EPS ability in older age may be primarily driven by anhedonia as opposed to other depressive symptoms.

Keywords:

• cognitive functioning
• affective processing, normal aging, everyday problem-solving
• positive affect

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge and thank all of the study participants whose time, efforts, and interest in cognitive aging research made this study possible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Note

Notes

1. Radloff (1977) presented four factors of the CES-D, where all items had loadings greater than .40 across three participant groups, as well as a more inclusive set of four factors, where all items had loadings of .35 or greater in at least two of three groups. The factors as discussed here are the more conservative groupings where all items had loadings greater than .40 in all groups tested.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) [grant number 410-2010-0407].