A.J.

Gow
Journal et al.: Social
of Individual SupHogrefe
port
Differences
© 2007 andVol.
2007; &Successful
Huber Aging
28(3):103–115
Publishers

Social Support and Successful Aging

https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47

Investigating the Relationships Between

Lifetime Cognitive Change and Life Satisfaction
Alan J. Gow1, Alison Pattie1, Martha C. Whiteman1,
Lawrence J. Whalley2, and Ian J. Deary1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2Department of Mental Health,
Clinical Research Centre, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Abstract. Social networks or support may contribute to successful aging. The Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 had their mental ability
assessed at age 11 and 79. Almost 500 participants also rated their life satisfaction, social networks, and support at age 80. After
controlling for age-11 IQ, sex, years of education, and social class, loneliness was the only social network/support characteristic adding
significantly to the prediction of age-79 IQ, explaining about 2% of the variance; in old age, increased loneliness was associated with
lower cognitive ability. Social network/support factors accounted for 23% of the variance in satisfaction with life ratings, with the
greatest contributions from reduced loneliness (~12%) and having someone to talk to (~6%). Social network/support characteristics
explained a greater proportion of the variance in life satisfaction ratings compared with later life cognition, although an individual’s
level of loneliness emerged as the largest single social support predictor of both outcomes. Possible causal pathways for these associ-
ations, which need to be studied in future research, are discussed.

Keywords: social support, social networks, cognitive ability, life satisfaction

Introduction For both cognitive and emotional outcomes, studies re-

One of the most interesting features of human aging is the
great variability that exists in the “aging trajectories” of
individuals (Wilson et al., 2002). Some older people remain
as mentally alert as they did in middle age, whereas others
show declines in cognitive ability that limit their capacity
to live and function independently (National Research
Council, 2000; Wilson et al., 2002). Cognitive decline,
therefore, is not an inevitable consequence of growing old-
er. It is important to identify factors that protect against
cognitive decline and promote successful aging (Fillit et
al., 2002; National Research Council, 2000; Zunzunegui,
Alvarado, Del Ser, & Otero, 2003; Wilson et al., 2002).
However, successful aging as a general construct is not a
single entity and will not be promoted by focusing on one
particular aspect of an individual’s life. Maintained cogni-
tive vitality is only one marker of successful aging; an in-
dividual’s emotional well-being in old age can also be tak-
en as an indicator of this. The National Institutes of Health
(NIH) Cognitive and Emotional Health Project recently
stated the following:
Identifying the demographic, biological, and psychosocial
factors that can help people maintain or enhance their cog-
nitive and emotional health as they grow older becomes a
major public health goal (Hendrie et al., 2006, p. 13).
viewed by the NIH suggested that emotional support and
social networks were potential protective factors (Hendrie
et al., 2006).
Cognitive Ability in Childhood and Late
Adulthood
Early life cognitive ability accounts for about 50% of the
variance in later life ability (Deary, Whalley, Lemmon,
Crawford, & Starr, 2000; Deary, Whiteman, Starr, Whalley,
& Fox, 2004): Those who have high levels of mental ability
in childhood are likely to have higher levels of mental abil-
ity in old age. However, the remaining 50% of the variance
in ability in old age suggests that other factors (for example,
genes, socioeconomic status, health, and exercise) also
have a role in how well cognitive function is maintained
from childhood to late adulthood. The search is on for such
cognitively-protective factors (Fillit et al., 2002). If factors
can be identified from potentially modifiable lifestyle do-
mains, interventions can be suggested in order to promote
healthy cognitive aging and, thus, reduce cognitive decline
in the aging population. As few studies of cognitive aging
have measures of mental ability from early life, determin-
ing later life changes in functioning is problematic. Low
cognitive function in old age might represent cognitive de-

© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
DOI 10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103
 104 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging
terioration caused by the particular lifestyle factor under
investigation, or it might represent a low level of prior abil-
ity in an individual. Only by controlling for a measure of
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47
early ability is it possible to determine whether factors from
a variety of domains can impact upon cognitive function.
The current study is unusual and valuable because of the
presence of childhood ability data in a cohort of elderly
individuals.
Social Engagement and Cognition
Many argue that pursuing a mentally engaged and active
lifestyle may be a part of preserving one’s cognitive abili-
ties into old age (Fratiglioni, Paillard-Borg, & Winblad,
2004). In addition, social networks and support (the num-
ber of social ties, marital status, or the level of support from
relatives and friends, for example) are predictive of later-
life mental health outcomes including cognitive impair-
ment and positive well-being (Fratiglioni, Wang, Ericsson,
Maytan, & Winblad, 2000; Okabayashi, Liang, Krause,
Akiyama, & Sugisawa, 2004). Fratiglioni and colleagues
(2000) reported that individuals who lived alone or had no
close social relationships were at an increased risk of de-
veloping dementia; those individuals defined as having a
poor or limited social network had a 60% increased risk.
Decreased social support may also increase cognitive de-
cline in the absence of dementia, as individuals aged 70–79
receiving a lower frequency of emotional support at base-
line were found to have poorer cognitive ability (a sum-
mary score from six cognitive tests) after a 7.5-year follow-
up (Seeman, Lusignolo, Albert, & Berkman, 2001). Al-
though the percentage of variance in cognitive ability
explained by the level of emotional support was only
around 1%, this was after other known confounders had
been controlled (including age, education, and health sta-
tus). It is possible that the lifetime impact of social support
could be much greater than that observed over a 7.5-year
period. Social contact may have potentially far reaching
consequences for the health and mental functioning of the
elderly (Melchior, Berkman, Niedhammer, Chea, & Gold-
berg, 2003).
A recent review suggested that positive aspects of social
networks appeared to be generally positively related to bet-
ter cognitive outcomes in later life (Fratiglioni et al., 2004).
However, across studies, differences were apparent in the
assessment of social networks (and support, when as-
sessed), from simple counts of close contacts to more de-
tailed assessments of social integration. The review identi-
fied seven longitudinal observational studies investigating
the association between social networks and cognition, yet
only three of these (Bassuk, Glass, & Berkman, 1999; See-
man et al., 2001; Zunzunegui et al., 2003) dealt with the
actual measurement of social ties or networks – the descrip-
tions of the remaining four highlight their reliance on mea-
sures of social activity participation. Bearing this caveat in
mind, five of the seven studies reported effects of social
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
networks on cognitive ability or decline, which led the au-
thors to conclude there was evidence of a protective effect
from social lifestyle components (Fratiglioni et al., 2004).
Although the mechanisms behind the reported associa-
tions are not fully understood, a number of potential path-
ways have been suggested. If cognitive aging is delayed or
slowed by the level of social support received through con-
tact and interaction with others, then the physiological
pathways underlying this are likely to be shared with those
thought to link increased social support with better health
outcomes. Social support may act as a buffer against stress-
ful life events and, thus, reduce exposure to the resultant
cumulative pathological effects of stress. Alternatively, so-
cial support may be a constant, more generally available
resource, accessed by an individual not just during periods
of increased stress, but across time and situations. Receiv-
ing more support over time would lead to improved health
as a direct result (Cohen & Wills, 1985), which might di-
rectly or indirectly impact upon cognitive outcomes.
Pathways linking social networks and support to physi-
ological changes are plausible, with a major review of stud-
ies assessing physiological function and social support con-
cluding:
Social support has beneficial effects on physiological pro-
cesses across different age groups. The net effect of such
processes may be to biologically age the individual at a
slower rate (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996,
p. 525).
This has obvious consequences for the development of dis-
ease and, thus, premature mortality. Social relationships,
networks, integration, and support could, therefore, also in-
fluence cognitive aging, itself an integral part of the human
aging process, via physiological pathways shared with
those affecting health.
However, this is not the only possible explanation. The
protection offered by being married or living with others,
for example, might be the result of the mental stimulation
required in dealing with other people (van Gelder et al.,
2006). Most authors promote a similar idea for the ob-
served associations, often highlighting the notion of cogni-
tive reserve (Barnes, Mendes de Leon, Wilson, Bienias, &
Evans, 2004; Bassuk et al., 1999; Fratiglioni et al., 2004;
van Gelder et al., 2006; Zunzunegui et al., 2003). Measures
of social networks may give an indication of how active an
individual is in their social environment, such that good
social relations with friends and relatives, throughout the
life course and especially in the late life, might produce
continued mental stimulation and better cognitive strate-
gies or increase neural growth and synaptic density – the
“use-it-or-lose-it” hypothesis – delaying cognitive impair-
ment or protecting against pathological processes (Zunzu-
negui et al., 2003, p. 98).
It is, of course, plausible that the reverse is true: Those
individuals experiencing greater cognitive change in old
age may be less able to sustain their social networks (Zun-
zunegui et al., 2003). Studies have attempted to limit the
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging
likelihood of this possibility by controlling for baseline
ability or by excluding participants with low scores at the
initial assessment, arguing that the effects remain after such
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47
adjustment (Barnes et al., 2004; Zunzunegui et al., 2003).
While all the studies included in the Fratiglioni et al. (2004)
review controlled for a baseline measure of cognitive abil-
ity, the earliest “baseline” assessments were generally
around 65 years. If cognitive decline is already apparent by
this first assessment in old age then this control may be
insufficient.
Furthermore, when dealing with predictors of cognitive
ability in aged individuals (social networks and support in
this instance), it is optimal to control for the earliest possi-
ble measure of mental ability because of the known strong
association between childhood and late adulthood cogni-
tive function (Deary et al., 2004). Without this, it is not
possible to exclude the possibility that prior ability has led
to increased or decreased social integration within a sup-
portive network. The aim, therefore, is to discover what
contributes to healthy cognitive aging over and above that
accounted for by higher early ability. That is, does premor-
bid ability fully account for or reduce the association be-
tween social networks and support and cognitive function
in old age?
Social Engagement and Subjective
Well-Being
Although maintaining cognitive vitality is advocated as a
major component of successful aging, this is a multifaceted
construct (Jorm et al., 1998). Well-being is another poten-
tial indicator of successful aging. The determinants of this
should be identified so that they might be promoted as peo-
ple grow older, in an attempt to increase their level of well-
being and contribute to a successful aging process (Rowe
& Kahn, 1987). Aspects of social networks (such as size,
complexity, or quality of contact, for instance) may con-
tribute to an individual’s psychological well-being: Diener
and Seligman (2002) noted that, in a sample of university
students, those classified as being in the most happy group
by the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS: Diener, Em-
mons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), had “fulsome and satisfy-
ing interpersonal lives,” spending less time by themselves
and more time socializing than those in the less happy
groups (Diener & Seligman, 2002, p. 82). The authors con-
cluded that while there may be no single key to happiness,
it might be necessary to have good relationships with those
around you before happiness is possible. The importance
of social support was also seen in a study of older Japanese
individuals: Increased social support from a variety of
sources was related to enhanced positive well-being (Oka-
bayashi et al., 2004).
Aspects of an individual’s life from which pleasure, en-
gagement, and meaning may be derived are those that
would be expected to have direct consequences for how life
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
105
satisfaction is perceived. Diener and Seligman (2004) re-
viewed the importance of social relationships to well-being
and suggested that the
quality of people’s social relationships is crucial to their
well-being. People need supportive, positive relationships
and social belonging to sustain well-being (p. 18).
This need to develop close and long-lasting relationships,
to belong, has been described as a fundamental and persis-
tent human drive, and one that is essential for well-being
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Moreover, a lack of social
contact or close friendship can have negative consequences
for an individual’s well-being (Diener & Seligman, 2004).
For example, women lacking a confidant reported in-
creased levels of depression and reduced life satisfaction
(Antonucci, Lansford, & Akiyama, 2001). The absence of
close, supportive others is often manifested as loneliness,
and is associated with negative outcomes, including phys-
ical impairment or poorer life satisfaction (Bowling, Edel-
mann, Leaver, & Hoekel, 1989). However, Diener and Se-
ligman (2004) highlighted the need to examine the causal
direction of any observed associations; stronger and more
supportive social relationships could enhance well-being,
but likewise those individuals who experience greater well-
being may enjoy better social relationships as a result.
The Present Study
Life satisfaction and cognitive ability have rarely been re-
searched together as outcomes, but both are important fac-
tors influencing quality of life in the elderly. We examined
both outcomes in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 Study
(LBC1921; Deary et al., 2004). Importantly, we were able
to control for the effect of early-life ability on cognitive
function in old age. Thus, we were able to address the fol-
lowing research questions:
1) Do any associations exist between early cognitive ability
(age 11) and later social networks and social support?
2) What is the association between social networks and
support, lifetime cognitive change (from age 11 to 79),
and life satisfaction ratings (assessed at around age 80)?
Methods
Participants
Participants were drawn from the LBC1921 Study. Their
recruitment has been described in detail previously (Deary
et al., 2004). In summary, the members of this cohort were
given a test of mental ability at school when aged between
10½ and 11½ years (mean = 10.9 years old, SD = 0.3) as
part of the 1932 Scottish Mental Survey (SMS1932), when
almost all Scottish children born in 1921 (N = 87, 498) were
tested at school on the same day (Scottish Council for Re-
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
 106 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging
search in Education, 1933). Survivors of the SMS1932
(that is, individuals born in 1921 and at school in Scotland
in 1932) from Edinburgh and the surrounding areas were
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47
traced either through the Community Health Index – a list
of individuals registered with a General Practitioner (GP)
in a given area – or as volunteers replying to media calls.
In all, 550 individuals (234 men and 316 women) were
recruited into the LBC1921, a longitudinal study of cogni-
tive aging (Deary et al., 2004), at a mean age of 79.1 years
(SD = 0.6). The LBC1921 have, therefore, not been fol-
lowed from birth, rather it is a retrospective cohort in which
the participants recruited at 79 years old gave permission
for their mental ability test scores from childhood to be
accessed from the SMS1932 (Deary, Whalley, Batty, &
Starr, 2006).
From previous reports on the cohort, it is possible to
describe how these individuals compare with the popula-
tion from which they were drawn. For the 87,498 children
who were tested in the SMS1932, the mean Moray House
Test (MHT) score was 34.5 (15.5) while those tested in Ed-
inburgh scored a mean of 37.3 (14.8). The individuals re-
cruited into the LBC1921 Study had a mean score of 46.4
(12.1) at age 11 (Deary et al., 2006).
As part of this follow-up at age 79, the LBC1921 retook
the mental ability test they sat when aged 11. The cohort
was generally healthy: mean MMSE (Folstein, Folstein, &
McHugh, 1975) score = 28.2 (SD = 1.7), ranging from 18
to 30 (9 participants scored below 24 points, suggestive of
early dementia). Information has been collected about a
range of social, psychological, and physical factors.
Procedure
The LBC1921 were mailed the Satisfaction With Life Scale
(SWLS: Diener et al., 1985), the Significant Others Scale
(SOS: Power, Champion, & Aris, 1988) and additional so-
cial network questions within a larger questionnaire book-
let, the distribution of which is described elsewhere (Gow,
Whiteman, Pattie, & Deary, 2005). Booklets were sent to
568 participants. This is a larger number than previously
reported from the LBC1921 Study (e.g., Deary et al., 2004),
as it includes those who were listed in the cohort and mailed
the booklet, but who did not subsequently attend the clinic
for age-79 cognitive testing. Return of the questionnaire
booklet was by prepaid envelope: 29 responses were refus-
als, 3 participants had died, and one address was unknown.
When the booklets were returned each was checked for
omissions. If an item had been missed or had multiple an-
swers, the participant was contacted to provide corrections.
For those who had not returned the questionnaire or cor-
rections within 4–5 weeks after mailing, a reminder with
another copy of the questionnaire/correction letter was sent
out. Booklets were received from 497 participants (87.5%).
Twenty-eight (5.6%) of these had some missing data (after
corrections were requested as appropriate). The number of
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
participants completing each measure used in the analysis
is reported throughout.
Measures
Mental Ability
Mental ability was assessed using the MHT No. 12 at ages
11 and 79. The test was administered at age 11 as part of
the SMS1932 (Scottish Council for Research in Education,
1933); at age 79, the test was administered individually
(Deary et al., 2004). The MHT assesses a range of abilities
including reasoning, arithmetic, following directions, and
analogies comprising 71 items giving a total score out of
76. It is a well-validated measure, correlating about .8 with
the Stanford Revision of the Binet Scale in 1000 11-year
olds (Scottish Council for Research in Education, 1933),
and .71 (N = 541) with Raven’s Matrices at age 79 (Deary
et al., 2004). The raw MHT scores were converted into IQ
scores by controlling for age in days at the time of testing
(referred to as age-11 IQ and age-79 IQ throughout, which,
by definition, both have a mean of 100 and a standard de-
viation of 15).
Satisfaction with Life
Satisfaction with life was assessed by the five-item SWLS
(Diener et al., 1985). Each item is answered on a 7-point
scale giving a possible range of SWLS scores from 5 to 35.
Social Networks and Support
The following measures were used to assess social net-
works and support in the LBC1921.
1. Significant others – the SOS (Power et al., 1988) was
administered. It is a self-report measure that assesses the
availability of, and perceived satisfaction with, the indi-
vidual’s support network. In the current study, five po-
tential supports were specified: spouse (husband/wife)
or partner, closest brother or sister, other brother or sis-
ter, closest son or daughter, and best friend. Participants
were required to state how often they received emotional
(two items) and practical (two items) support from each
of these potential supports. For each item they were also
asked what their ideal level of support would be. Re-
sponses were on a 7-point scale (from never to always).
If the participant did not have one of the potential sup-
ports (e.g., they were single or their spouse had died)
they were asked to cross out that category. When this
occurred, the particular significant other was scored as
being unavailable to provide support, and received the
lowest possible score for each item. For each participant,
the SOS responses generated the following set of scores:
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging 107

– whether they had each of the named significant others guide variable selection in the regression analyses predicting
(yes/no); these outcomes. Adjusted R2 and adjusted R2 change are re-
– how many significant others they had in total (0–5); ported to indicate the percentage of variance accounted for
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47

– the perceived level of support received from each indi-
vidual significant other listed;
– their ideal level of support from each individual signif-
icant other listed;
– a discrepancy measure for each individual significant
other listed (ideal minus actual support score);
– and average support, average ideal support, and aver-
age discrepancy scores. The total support, total ideal
support, or discrepancy is summed across all the sig-
nificant others and divided by the number of significant
others listed. This controls for the number of signifi-
cant others present in an individual’s network; that is,
an individual is not penalized if they do not have sib-
lings, for example.
2. Household composition – participants filled in details of
their age-11 and current (age-80) household composi-
tion. They were first asked how many people were in
their house at age 11. Next, they were asked how many
individuals they currently shared their home with, even
if they were not related. This gave the total number of
people they lived with at ages 11 and 80 (an indicator of
their physical contact with others). The latter informa-
tion was used to create a binary variable for living alone
at age 80 versus living with others.
3. Loneliness – participants were asked two specific ques-
tions regarding feeling lonely. First, they were asked to
rate on a 5-point scale (most of the time to never) wheth-
er or not they felt lonely at the present time. The other
item simply asked whether the participants felt they had
people to talk to when they had problems, and required
a yes/no response.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics for the social support and network vari-
ables are presented, followed by an examination of the uni-
variate associations of each of these with age-11 IQ, age-79
IQ, and life satisfaction ratings. Significant univariate asso-
ciations with age-79 IQ and satisfaction with life are used to
by each dependent variable in the models.
Results
Descriptives and Correlations
Significant Others Scale (SOS)
The SOS was completed by 488 individuals; 205 (42.0%)
men and 283 (58.0%) women. Of this number, 220 (45.1%)
were married at the time of the mailing, 265 (54.3%) had
a close sibling, and 137 (28.1%) had another sibling. The
majority of participants had a close child (394; 80.7%) with
a similar percentage recording that they had a best friend
(399; 81.8%). Overall, the majority of participants listed
two or three significant others; 147 (30.1%) and 137
(28.1%) participants, respectively, giving a mean of 2.9
(SD = 1.2). The number of significant others was not sig-
nificantly related to any of the cognitive measures either in
the full sample (Table 1), or separately in men and women
(Table 2). There was a small positive association between
the number of significant others and life satisfaction scores
in the full sample (r = .14, p = .003) suggesting that those
with a greater number of close contacts tended to be more
satisfied, although the association was only significant in
men when the cohort was split (Table 2).
When the presence of each of the significant others was
considered (Table 3), simply having a spouse or close child
was related to life satisfaction scores, although the associ-
ations were again small; those with a spouse had signifi-
cantly higher satisfaction-with-life scores, mean SWLS of
26.1 (6.0), compared with 24.7 (6.2); t(477) = –2.14, p =
.016, Cohen’s d = .22, as did those with a close child, mean
SWLS of 25.6 (6.1) compared with 24.2 (6.1); t(477) =
–2.04, p = .042, Cohen’s d = .24. Having a spouse was also
positively related to age-79 IQ (Table 3) such that those
with a spouse had a significantly higher age-79 IQ, mean
of 102.5 (13.9) compared with 99.6 (14.9); t(464) = –2.15,

Table 1. IQ and satisfaction with life associations with social network and support factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean (SD)
1. Age-11 IQ – .66*** .02 –.05 .05 .10* .07 100.0 (15.0)
2. Age-79 IQ – .06 .00 .08 .11* .04 100.0 (15.0)
3. SWLS – .14** .25*** .15** –.17*** 25.3 (6.1)
4. Number of significant others – –.10* –.08 .04 2.9 (1.2)
5. Average support – .77*** –.41*** 22.6 (4.4)
6. Average ideal support – .27*** 24.3 (4.2)
7. Average support discrepancy – 1.7 (2.9)
Note. SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale; Average support, average ideal support and average support discrepancy = the total support, total
ideal support, and total discrepancy summed across all the significant others, divided by the number of significant others listed. *p < .05, **p
< .01, ***p < .001

© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
 108 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging

Table 2. IQ and satisfaction with life associations with social network and support factors by gender
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age-11 IQ – .63*** .04 –.05 –.01 .11 .15*
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47

2. Age-79 IQ .69*** – .09 –.01 .04 .06 .01

3. SWLS .00 .04 – .15* .20** .22** .00
4. Number of significant others –.03 –.01 .11 – –.07 –.04 .05
5. Average support .11 .10 .30*** –.13* – .69*** –.50***
6. Average ideal support .11 .14* .11 –.11 .80*** – .28***
7. Average support discrepancy –.01 .06 –.31*** .03 –.36*** .27*** –
Note. Correlations above the diagonal are for men and below the diagonal for women. SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale; Average support,
average ideal support, and average support discrepancy = the total support, total ideal support and total discrepancy summed across all the
significant others, divided by the number of significant others listed. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3. IQ and satisfaction with life associations with significant other variables
Age-11 IQ Age-79 IQ SWLS
Present Present Present
T M F A I D T M F A I D T M F A I D
Spouse .01 .04 .07 –.12 –.07 .10 .10* .04 .11 –.03 .00 .04 .11* .15* .05 .36*** .25*** –.30***
Closest sibling –.02 –.05 .00 .08 .06 –.04 .01 .01 .01 .07 .03 –.06 .02 .02 .01 .13* .05 –.13*
Other sibling –.11* –.13 –.09 .13 .06 –.12 –.06 –.07 –.06 .20* .08 –.20* .07 .02 .11 .12 .03 –.14
Closest child –.01 .09 –.06 –.12* .02 .15*** –.01 .09 –.08 –.10* –.03 .13* .09* .11 .08 .18*** .17** –.05
Best friend .00 –.04 .02 .02 .10 .12* –.05 –.09 .00 .06 .03 .10* .08 .13 .04 .23*** .11* –.19***
Note. Present = correlations with the presence or absence of the named significant other and the outcome for the total sample (T), and male (M)
and female (F) subgroups separately; A = correlations between the actual level of social support received from the named significant other and
the outcome, excluding those participants without this significant other; similarly, I = ideal level of social support and D = discrepancy between
ideal and actual level of social support. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

p = .032, Cohen’s d = .20. Having another sibling was neg-
atively associated with age-11 IQ, mean age-11 IQ was
97.9 (15.5) in those with another sibling compared with
101.4 (14.3) in those without; this difference was signifi-
cant: t(422) = 2.18, p = .030, Cohen’s d = –.234. When
examined separately by gender (Table 3), the association
between the presence of a spouse and greater life satisfac-
tion was only found in men; however, the presence or ab-
sence of each of the significant others was not related to
cognitive ability when the sample was split.
The average level of social support received (the total
support received divided by the number of significant oth-
ers providing it) was positively related to satisfaction with
life in the full sample (r = .25, p = .000: Table 1) and sep-
arately in men and women (Table 2). Similarly, the partic-
ipants’ average ideal level of social support was related to
life satisfaction ratings (r = .15, p = .001), although this was
only significant for men when the sample was split (r = .22,
p = .002). The discrepancy between the average level of
support received and the participant’s average ideal level
(ideal minus actual support) was negatively related to
SWLS (r = –.17, p = .000), which suggests that the most
satisfied individuals are those who receive support that
more closely matches their desired level (this was only sig-
nificant in women: r = –.31, p = .000). The average ideal
level of support was positively associated with both age-11
IQ and age-79 IQ in the full sample (Table 1), but only the
association with age-79 IQ remained in women when the
sample was split (Table 2).
The associations between the level of support received
from each significant other and age-11 IQ, age-79 IQ, and
satisfaction with life were then investigated (Table 3).
When analyzing the associations with the level of spousal
support, we excluded people without a spouse. Exclusions
were made in the same manner for the associations with the
level of support from the closest and other sibling, closest
child, and best friend. The level of support received from
each significant other was significantly positively related
to satisfaction with life (except other sibling), with associ-
ations ranging from .13 for closest sibling to .36 for spouse
(both p < .05; Table 3). That is, the higher the support from
each of the people in a person’s social network, the greater
their life satisfaction.
Those who received increased support from another sib-
ling (not their closest) had higher age-79 IQ (r = .20, p =
.023: Table 3). Conversely, higher levels of support from a
closest child were negatively related to IQ at ages 11 and
79, r = –.12 (p = .030) and –.10 (p = .045), respectively.
For each significant other, it was also possible to calculate
a discrepancy measure (the ideal level of support minus
actual support received), again excluding those who did not
list the specified significant other (Table 3). The discrep-
ancies between the actual support received and the ideal
level from spouse, closest sibling, and best friend were neg-

Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115 © 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging
atively related to SWLS; r = –.30 (p = .000), –.13 (p = .037)
and –.19 (p = .042), respectively; a closer match between
ideal and actual support (a lower discrepancy score) is as-
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47
sociated with increased life satisfaction. The relationship-
specific associations are not reported separately for men
and women because of the reduced sample sizes that would
result from that analysis.
Household Composition, Living Alone, and
Loneliness
The number of people in the house at age 11 was negatively
related to both age-11 and age-79 IQ (r = –.19 and –.17,
respectively, p = .000); these associations were significant in
both men (r = –.16 and –.20, respectively, p < .05) and women
(r = –.22 and –.15, respectively, p < .05). A total of 489
participants supplied details of their living arrangements at
age 80: 236 (48.3%) were living alone. Those living alone
rather than with others had significantly lower age-79 IQ,
99.4 (14.9) versus 102.4 (13.7), t(465) = –2.27, p = .023,
Cohen’s d = –.21; and lower SWLS, 24.4 (6.3) versus 26.1
(5.8), t(479) = –3.04, p = .003, Cohen’s d = –.28. The living
alone versus age-79 IQ associations were not significant
when the sample was split by gender, and the relationship
between living alone and lower SWLS was only significant
in men, mean SWLS scores were 24.2 (7.0) versus 26.3 (6.0),
t(202) = –2.11, p = .036 for men, and 24.5 (6.0) versus 25.9
(5.6), t(234.0) = –1.91, p = .057, for women.
Of the 409 participants who answered the separate item
on feeling lonely, 208 (42.4%) reported never feeling lone-
ly at present. A further 135 (27.6%) and 107 (21.8%) said
they seldom or only occasionally felt lonely, respectively;
34 participants (6.9%) reported being lonely quite often;
and 6 (1.2%) reported feeling lonely most of the time. In-
creased feelings of loneliness were related to lower age-79
IQ (r = –.18, p = .000), and decreased satisfaction with life
(r = –.40, p = .000). The association between cognitive
ability and loneliness was only significant for women, r =
–.22 (p = .000) in women and –.09 (ns) in men, but in-
creased loneliness was related to poorer life satisfaction in
both men and women (r = –.38 and –.41, respectively, p =
.000). Most of the LBC1921 (96.5%) felt they had someone
to talk to when they needed to, which was related to in-
creased satisfaction with life in the full sample (r = .28, p
= .000) and separately in men and women (r = .20 and .33,
respectively, p < .001).
Regression Analyses
Two sets of regressions were performed: one with age-79
IQ as the outcome, and one with satisfaction with life as
the outcome. Significant univariate correlations guided the
selection of predictor variables. (Although there were as-
sociations between the outcomes of interest and factors in
the relationship-specific analyses, such as spousal support
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
109
discrepancy and satisfaction with life in those with a
spouse, these were not included in the regression analyses
because of the reduced sample sizes that would have oc-
curred.)
Age-79 IQ
With age-79 IQ as the outcome, age-11 IQ and sex were
entered into the regression in Block 1, with spouse (yes/no),
number of people sharing the house at age 11, average ideal
level of support, living alone at age 80, and feeling lonely
entered in the second block, using stepwise selection. As
age-11 IQ is entered in the regression, any variables that
appear in the final model are, therefore, accounting for vari-
ance in age-79 IQ independent of this (or, effectively, life-
time cognitive change). The first model accounted for 44%
of the variance in age-79 IQ (age-11 IQ β = .67, p = .000;
sex β = –.09, p = .017). Loneliness was the only variable
accounting for additional variance, contributing a further
2% to the variance explained (β = –.15, p = .000). Entering
the number of years in full-time, formal education and so-
cial class (the highest occupational position achieved, cod-
ed according to the Classification of Occupations [General
Register Office, 1956], ranging from 1 [highest] to 5 [low-
est]; for married women, the social class of their husband
was used) did not alter the regression results other than that
the first model now explained 46% of the variance.
Regressions predicting age-79 IQ were also carried out
separately by gender as different variables were associated
with cognitive ability in men and women. Age-11 IQ, years
of education, and social class were entered in Block 1 in
each case. In women, the number of people in the house at
age 11, the average ideal level of support, and loneliness
were entered stepwise in the second block. Again, only
loneliness accounted for variance in age-79 IQ (about 3%),
after age-11 IQ, social class, and education (explaining
about 49%). In men, only the number of people in the house
at age 11 was associated with age-79 IQ, but this did not
explain unique variance in age-79 IQ after age-11 IQ, social
class, and education were accounted for (explaining about
43%).
Satisfaction with Life
With SWLS as the outcome (sex, years of education, and
social class were controlled in Block 1), the predictor vari-
ables entered in a stepwise fashion were: average support
and average ideal support, number of significant others,
spouse (yes/no), closest child (yes/no), living alone at age
80, loneliness, and having someone to talk to about prob-
lems (yes/no). Loneliness accounted for 15% of the vari-
ance in SWLS scores (Table 4) and having someone to talk
to about problems accounted for an additional 5%. The next
model contributed a further 2% to the variance explained
in SWLS with the addition of average actual support. Over-
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
 110 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging

Table 4. Summary of regression analysis for social network/support variables predicting satisfaction with life
Variable B SE B β Adjusted multiple R2 Adjusted R2 change
Model 1 .02 .02*
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47

Sex –.58 .57 –.05

Years Education .11 .13 .04
Social class –.76 .36 –.11*
Model 2 .16 .15***
Sex .59 .54 .05
Years Education .09 .12 .03
Social class –.60 .34 –.09
Loneliness –2.39 .27 –.40***
Model 3 .21 .05***
Sex .60 .52 .05
Years Education .11 .12 .04
Social class –.58 .33 –.08
Loneliness –2.21 .26 –.37***
Talk problems 7.39 1.43 .22***
Model 4 .23 .02**
Sex .53 .52 .04
Years Education .12 .12 .05
Social class –.60 .32 –.09
Loneliness –2.11 .26 –.35***
Talk problems 6.16 1.46 .18***
Average social support +.20 .06 .14**
Note. Talk problems = having someone to talk to about problems (yes/no); Average social support = the total support summed across all the
significant others, divided by the number of significant others listed. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5. Summary of regression analysis for social network/support variables predicting satisfaction with life in women
Variable B SE B β Adjusted multiple R2 Adjusted R2 change
Model 1 .00 .01
Years education .09 .19 .03
Social class –.42 .46 –.06
Model 2 .16 .16***
Years education .02 .17 .01
Social class –.21 .43 –.03
Loneliness –2.28 .33 –.40***
Model 3 .22 .06***
Years education .10 .17 .04
Social class –.21 .41 –.03
Loneliness –2.01 .32 –.36***
Talk problems 7.61 1.69 .25***
Model 4 .23 .02*
Years education .10 .17 .04
Social class –.25 .41 –.04
Loneliness –1.91 .32 –.34***
Talk problems 6.54 1.74 .22***
Average social support .18 .08 .14*
Note. Talk problems = having someone to talk to about problems (yes/no); Average social support = the total support summed across all the
significant others, divided by the number of significant others listed. *p < .05, ***p < .001.

all, the final model accounted for about 23% of the variance
in SWLS scores, with the largest contribution from loneli-
ness (β = –.35, p = .000, about 12% of the variance), fol-
lowed by having someone to talk to about problems (β =
.18, p = .000, about 6% of the variance). The regression
was repeated, but average support discrepancy was entered
rather than average support and average ideal support. The
results were essentially unchanged, with average support
discrepancy accounting for about 1% of the variance in life
satisfaction ratings.
The regressions were run separately for men and women
(with years of education and social class entered in Block
1). In women, average support, loneliness, and having
someone to talk to were entered stepwise in Block 2. The
results (summarized in Table 5) suggest that these variables
accounted for about 23% of the variance in life satisfaction
ratings. When average support discrepancy was entered in-
stead of average support, loneliness accounted for ~13%,
followed by average support discrepancy (~5%) and hav-
ing someone to talk to (~4%). In men, the number of sig-

Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115 © 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging 111

Table 6. Summary of regression analysis for social network/support variables predicting satisfaction with life in men
Variable B SE B β Adjusted multiple R2 Adjusted R2 change
Model 1 .03 .04*
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47

Years education .08 .19 .04

Social class –1.23 .59 –.17*
Model 2 .17 .14***
Years education .09 .18 .04
Social class –1.12 .54 –.16*
Loneliness –2.63 .45 –.38***
Model 3 .21 .05**
Years education .09 .17 .04
Social class –1.04 .53 –.15
Loneliness –2.58 .44 –.37***
Average ideal social support .38 .11 .22**
Note. Average ideal social support = the total ideal support summed across all the significant others, divided by the number of significant others
listed. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

nificant others listed, spouse (yes/no), average support and
average ideal support, living alone, having someone to talk
to, and loneliness were entered stepwise in Block 2, with
the results summarized in Table 6. Loneliness again ac-
counted for the greatest proportion of the variance in satis-
faction with life ratings, accounting for about 14%.
Discussion
This study reported associations between social network
and support characteristics to age-79 IQ and satisfaction
with life in a cohort of relatively healthy elderly individ-
uals. After adjustment for sex, years of education, social
class, and age-11 IQ, loneliness remained a significant pre-
dictor of age-79 IQ, accounting for about 2% of the vari-
ance. Individuals reporting higher loneliness had poorer
cognitive function at age 79. Social network and support
factors explained 23% of the variance in satisfaction with
life ratings, with the greatest contributions to higher satis-
faction with life coming from reduced loneliness (~12%)
and having someone to talk to (~6%).
Social Network Size
These data show that having a greater number of individ-
uals in one’s social support network is not associated with
enhanced cognitive outcomes, and the impact on life satis-
faction is small. The total number of significant others was
limited in this instance by the nature of the measurement
used; it remains possible that given an open response for-
mat, greater individual variability in the number of close
social ties reported would be seen. Carstensen’s socioemo-
tional selectivity theory suggests that as individuals age,
they reduce the number of close contacts in their social
network, becoming more selective in their relationships;
however, emotional closeness to these (fewer) individuals
increases (Carstensen, 1995; Carstensen, 1992; Lansford,
Sherman, & Antonucci, 1998). In agreement with our life-
span cognitive change findings, previous research by See-
man and colleagues (2001) suggested that the number of
close ties did not predict cognitive change over 7.5 years,
indicating that it may be that the adequacy of the support
is of more importance than how many individuals are in the
social network.
Interestingly, living with a greater number of people at
age 11 was negatively associated with childhood and later
adulthood mental ability. It would be suggested that a more
overcrowded home in childhood might be a marker of so-
cioeconomic status or deprivation. Furthermore, when
asked at age 80 about the presence of a range of significant
others, individuals who reported having another sibling (in
addition to their closest sibling, that is, they were part of a
larger family) scored lower at age 11. This item appears to
be a very rough proxy for family size. The intelligence-
family size association was described in detail in a later
Scottish Mental Survey, carried out in 1947 (Scottish
Council for Research in Education, 1949). Family size and
overcrowding are closely related, and both are influenced
by parental social class. It is, therefore, likely that lower
social class and increased deprivation, or other associated
detrimental environmental factors, explain the relationship
between family size, household composition, and child-
hood ability, rather than there being a direct link (Scottish
Council for Research in Education, 1949). As childhood
household composition and family size (indexed by having
another sibling in this instance) appear to be markers of
childhood circumstances rather than the presence of social
networks or support, they will not be discussed further.
Significant Others, Social Support and
Successful Aging
The results from the LBC1921 suggest that the presence of
key significant others is associated with cognitive ability
or satisfaction with life in old age. For example, those who
had a spouse or a closest child had significantly higher life

© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
 112 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging
satisfaction ratings. Additionally, the level of support re-
ceived from the spouse had the largest association (of all
the named significant others) with satisfaction with life,
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47
although it did not account for additional, independent vari-
ance in the regression analyses. In a range of studies sum-
marized by Diener (1984), being married generally led to
increased subjective well-being. Indeed, a lasting marriage
adds a similar “worth” to life satisfaction ratings as does
an extra $100,000 income per annum (Blanchflower & Os-
wald, 2004).
Those who were married also had better cognitive per-
formance in later life, with significantly higher age-79 IQ
compared with those who were unmarried. This is in agree-
ment with the finding that never-married individuals are at
an increased risk of developing dementia (Helmer et al.,
1999), although contradictory findings have been reported.
In another study, unmarried individuals were shown to
have better cognitive function at baseline (Seeman et al.,
2001), however, this relationship was no longer significant
in the longitudinal follow-up of these individuals.
And yet, no particular individual in the support network
is more necessary than others, and there is a substitutability
of particular contacts (Bassuk et al., 1999). Seeman and
Berkman (1988) reported that neither a spouse nor children
are considered the primary sources of support, based on a
study of almost 3,000 community dwelling, elderly indi-
viduals (aged 65 and over). This, however, does not rule
out how important a spouse, for example, may be for cog-
nitive outcomes: Although the spouse may not be the most
important source of support received, their presence may
play a role in increasing engagement, for instance. An in-
creased level of support from the closest child is associated
with poorer mental ability at both ages 11 and 79. However,
this increased support is perhaps more likely to be a con-
sequence rather than a cause of poorer cognitive function.
Those with a lower ability in early life are more likely to
have a lower ability in later life; accordingly, such individ-
uals may be likely to have an increased dependency on
others and require extra help in their everyday lives and,
thus, report greater levels of support.
While many previous studies report a link between de-
creased social support and poorer cognitive outcomes (Fra-
tiglioni et al., 2004; Seeman et al., 2001), this was not ap-
parent in the current study (only the level of support from
another sibling or closest child were related to age-79 IQ).
However, not all studies report such a finding: Okabayashi
et al. (2004) did not find a link between social exchanges
and cognitive outcomes in individuals who were married
with children, although there was an effect of increased
support from children in those individuals without a
spouse. Mismatched results in this domain may be a reflec-
tion of the different measures used to assess perceived and
actual support (Jones, Rapport, Hanks, Lichtenberg, & Tel-
met, 2003). The discrepancy may also be the result of the
fact that, in the current study, later-life cognition and social
contacts were measured almost simultaneously, but cogni-
tive change (age-79 IQ controlled for childhood IQ) was
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
measured across the lifespan. Social factors may, therefore,
predict future, shorter-term changes in the LBC1921. Yet
even over 7.5 years of follow-up in the MacArthur study
(Seeman et al., 2001), the level of emotional support re-
ceived by individuals accounted for only 1% of the vari-
ance in cognitive change (a smaller percentage than that
accounted for by loneliness in the current study). It is un-
clear whether this would remain a significant predictor
were it possible to control for an earlier measure of ability,
as is possible with the LBC1921.
The current study suggests that increased social support,
or a lower discrepancy between this and an individual’s
ideal level, is associated with increased satisfaction with
life. As previously reported by other researchers (Diener &
Seligman, 2002; Ho et al., 1995; Okabayashi et al., 2004)
good social relationships or support may be important for
life satisfaction.
Living Alone and Feeling Alone
Living alone was associated with poorer age-79 IQ and
lower life satisfaction in the current study, as has been pre-
viously shown for cognitive outcomes (Fratiglioni et al.,
2000). This finding is in agreement with previous literature,
whereby living alone was a risk factor for cognitive decline
or dementia (Fratiglioni et al., 2000; van Gelder et al.,
2006). Living alone might be a marker for a lack of cogni-
tive stimulation from other individuals or a reduction in
social support, leading to poorer mental health outcomes.
It is also possible that a transition to being alone has led to
adverse lifestyle changes or increased depression, which
are driving the association (van Gelder et al., 2006). Re-
gardless of any hypothesized pathways, however, it is im-
portant to note that living alone versus with others did not
enter into the regression predicting age-79 IQ. Continued
follow-up with the cohort will help to determine whether
living situation is associated with further cognitive change
in the LBC1921, or whether transitions from one situation
to another are predictive of decline.
However, simply living alone is not what may be the
most important risk factor with respect to cognition, but
rather actually being alone (Berkman, 2000). The current
findings would support the view that it is feeling alone that
has the strongest association with cognition; loneliness was
the only significant predictor of age-79 IQ after adjusting
for early ability. It is plausible that sex is a confounder of
the relationship between loneliness and later life cognition,
as women may be more likely to have lost a spouse (be-
cause of the shorter lifespan of men), and so might be ex-
pected to experience greater feelings of loneliness. In the
regression analysis, loneliness accounted for ~2% of the
variance in age-79 IQ, which was adjusted for sex, educa-
tion, social class, and age-11 IQ (although in the gender-
specific analyses loneliness was not related to cognitive
ability in men). That is, individuals who showed more neg-
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging
ative cognitive change across the lifespan were lonelier in
later life.
Loneliness is clearly an important factor in people’s
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47
lives and may indicate a lack of possibility for social en-
gagement. Although not specifically assessing the structure
of an individual’s social network, or the actual level of so-
cial support received, the level of loneliness experienced
by an individual may indicate both an inadequate network
and a lack of support. Therefore, it would not be feeling
lonely per se which is cognitively disadvantageous, but
rather it is the inherent lack of social support, contact, or
integration within a wider social network, which is driving
the effect. The impact of loneliness appears to span do-
mains of successful aging as it also emerges as an important
predictor of life satisfaction. Feeling lonely would suggest
an inadequate or absent social support network and, thus,
limited opportunities for social engagement.
It is possible that those who are experiencing cognitive
decline are less able to gauge appropriately how lonely they
are, or that they have chosen to remove themselves from
social situations or have been left socially isolated because
of this decline (Berkman, 2000). In this explanation, lone-
liness would be a consequence rather than cause of cogni-
tive decline. This important point requires further investi-
gation before it would be possible to determine which caus-
al pathway takes precedence. Moreover, it is necessary to
consider whether the detrimental effect of feeling lonely (if
that is the causal direction) occurs later in life, or whether
there is a cumulative effect across the lifespan. This latter
issue would have implications for any suggested interven-
tions (Berkman, 2000).
Limitations of the Current Study
One of the major strengths of the current study is the pres-
ence of a measure of early ability, which can be controlled
for when predicting later functioning; however, the study
also has limitations. For example, in later life, the method
of assessing social support restricted the participants to five
named significant others. It is possible that a wider range
of responses would have been received were the partici-
pants given a freer choice. There is also debate about the
utility of discrepancy scores that can be analyzed as the
simpler constituents (for example Edwards, 1994), which
for current purposes would be: how much support would
be ideally wanted, and how much support was obtained.
Discrepancy scores were computed following the scoring
procedures of the SOS (Power et al., 1988), but the simpler
elements were also analyzed separately.
In addition, other than the early cognitive data, only ba-
sic background information was available from the early
part of the lifespan in the LBC1921 participants making the
analyses primarily cross-sectional. The social contact and
support measures were administered shortly after the age-
79 cognitive testing, making any casual explanations of the
age-79 cognition and social support associations tentative
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
113
at present. Throughout, it has been suggested that social
support (or not being lonely) is protective of a cognitive
ability, but this is only one possible explanation for the as-
sociations. Those who maintain their cognitive abilities in-
to old age may be better able to retain a close, supportive
network, and to seek help when needed, and, therefore, may
be less likely to experience increased loneliness with age.
An, as yet, unmeasured confounder may also underlie the
association which would predict both social support and
mental ability. Similarly, the life satisfaction findings are
currently cross-sectional: Although increased loneliness or
poorer support might lead to reduced satisfaction with life,
it is also possible that individuals who are less satisfied
might be more likely to rate the quality of their relation-
ships as poor, or report being more lonely.
Because of the timing of the assessments, it is not pos-
sible to ascertain the directionality of the relationships re-
ported. However, the LBC1921 follow-up is continuing
and will be able to address this issue. The cohort are cur-
rently undergoing repeat cognitive testing, now aged about
83. Therefore, temporal (possibly causal) relationships be-
tween social support and change in cognitive function and
quality of life between the ages of 79 and 83 will then be
able to be assessed.
Conclusions
After controlling for the effects of childhood ability, sex,
education, and social class in this relatively healthy elderly
cohort, loneliness was the only feature of social support
related to later life ability. This is important as many studies
are unable to control for early ability, which is necessary
in order to determine what additional impact other factors
may have on later functioning. Life satisfaction in old age
was much more strongly related to aspects of social sup-
port, with loneliness accounting for the highest proportion
of the variance. Remedies for loneliness in the elderly pro-
vide one of several routes to improved quality of life for
older individuals.
References
Antonucci, T.C., Lansford, J.E., & Akiyama, H. (2001). Impact
of positive and negative aspects of marital relationships and
friendships on well-being of older adults. Applied Develop-
mental Science, 5, 68–75.
Barnes, L.L., Mendes de Leon, C.F., Wilson, R.S., Bienias, J.L.,
& Evans, D.A. (2004). Social resources and cognitive decline
in a population of older African-Americans and whites. Neu-
rology, 63, 2322–2326.
Bassuk, S.S., Glass, T.A., & Berkman, L.F. (1999). Social dis-
engagement and incident cognitive decline in community-
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
 114 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging
dwelling elderly persons. Annals of Internal Medicine, 131,
165–173.
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Berkman, L.F. (2000). Which influences cognitive function:
Living alone or being alone? The Lancet, 355, 1291–1292.
Blanchflower, D.G., & Oswald, A.J. (2004). Well-being over
time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics,
88, 1359–1386.
Bowling, A.P., Edelmann, R.J., Leaver, J., & Hoekel, T. (1989).
Loneliness, mobility, well-being, and social support in a sam-
ple of over-85-year-olds. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 10, 1189–1192.
Carstensen, L.L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adult-
hood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychol-
ogy and Aging, 7, 331–338.
Carstensen, L.L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of so-
cioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 4, 151–156.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the
buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Deary, I.J., Whalley, L.J., Batty, G.D., & Starr, J.M. (2006).
Physical fitness and lifetime cognitive change. Neurology, 67,
1195–1200.
Deary, I.J., Whalley, L.J., Lemmon, H., Crawford, J.R., & Starr,
J.M. (2000). The stability of individual differences in mental
ability from childhood to old age: Follow-up of the 1932
Scottish Mental Survey. Intelligence, 28, 49–55.
Deary, I.J., Whiteman, M.C., Starr, J.M., Whalley, L.J., & Fox,
H.C. (2004). The impact of childhood intelligence on later
life: Following up the Scottish Mental Surveys of 1932 and
1947. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
130–147.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 94, 542–575.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Very happy people. Psy-
chological Science, 13, 81–84.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward
an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Pub-
lic Interest, 5, 1–31.
Edwards, J.R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to
difference scores. Journal of Management, 20, 683–689.
Fillit, H.M., Butler, R.N., O’Connell, A.W., Albert, M.S., Birren,
J.E., Cotman, C.W. et al. (2002). Achieving and maintaining
cognitive vitality with aging. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77,
681–696.
Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). “Mini-
mental state.” A practical method for grading the cognitive
state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Re-
search, 12, 189–198.
Fratiglioni, L., Paillard-Borg, S., & Winblad, B. (2004). An ac-
tive and socially integrated lifestyle in late life might protect
against dementia. The Lancet Neurology, 3, 343–353.
Fratiglioni, L., Wang, H.-X., Ericsson, K., Maytan, M., & Win-
blad, B. (2000). Influence of social network on occurrence of
dementia: A community-based longitudinal study. The Lan-
cet, 355, 1315–1319.
Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115
General Register Office (1956). Census 1951: Classification of
occupations. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Gow, A.J., Whiteman, M.C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I.J. (2005). The
personality-intelligence interface: Insights from an aging co-
hort. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 751–761.
Helmer, C., Damon, D., Letenneur, L., Fabrigoule, C., Barber-
ger-Gateau, P., Lafont, S. et al. (1999). Marital status and risk
of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 53, 1953–1958.
Hendrie, H.C., Albert, M.S., Butters, M.A., Gao, S., Knopman,
D.S., Launer, L.J. et al. (2006). The NIH Cognitive and Emo-
tional Health Project: Report of the Critical Evaluation Study
Committee. Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 2, 12–32.
Ho, S.C., Woo, J., Lau, J., Chan, S.G., Yuen, Y.K., Chan, Y.K.
et al. (1995). Life satisfaction and associated factors in older
Hong Kong Chinese. Journal of the American Geriatrics So-
ciety, 43, 252–255.
Jones, T.G., Rapport, L.J., Hanks, R.A., Lichtenberg, P.A., &
Telmet, K. (2003). Cognitive and psychological predictors of
subjective well-being in urban older adults. The Clinical Neu-
ropsychologist, 17, 3–18.
Jorm, A.F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A.S., Jacomb, P.A.,
Korten, A.E., & Mackinnon, A. (1998). Factors associated
with successful aging. Australasian Journal on Aging, 17,
33–37.
Lansford, J.E., Sherman, A.M., & Antonucci, T.C. (1998). Sat-
isfaction with social networks: An examination of socioemo-
tional selectivity theory across cohorts. Psychology and Ag-
ing, 13, 544–552.
Melchior, M., Berkman, L.F., Niedhammer, I., Chea, M., &
Goldberg, M. (2003). Social relations and self-reported
health: A prospective analysis of the French Gazel cohort.
Social Science and Medicine, 56, 1817–1830.
National Research Council (2000). The aging mind: Opportuni-
ties in cognitive research. Washington, DC: National Acade-
my Press.
Okabayashi, H., Liang, J., Krause, N., Akiyama, H., & Sugi-
sawa, H. (2004). Mental health among older adults in Japan:
Do sources of social support and negative interaction make a
difference? Social Science and Medicine, 59, 2259–2270.
Power, M.J., Champion, L.A., & Aris, S.J. (1988). The develop-
ment of a measure of social support: The Significant Others
(SOS) Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27,
349–358.
Rowe, J.W., & Kahn, R.L. (1987). Human aging: Usual and suc-
cessful. Science, 237, 143–149.
Scottish Council for Research in Education (1933). The intelli-
gence of Scottish children: A national survey of an age-group.
London: University of London Press, Ltd.
Scottish Council for Research in Education (1949). The trend of
Scottish intelligence. London: University of London Press.
Seeman, T.E., & Berkman, L.F. (1988). Structural characteristics
of social networks and their relationship with social support
in the elderly: Who provides support? Social Science and
Medicine, 26, 737–749.
Seeman, T.E., Lusignolo, T.M., Albert, M., & Berkman, L.
(2001). Social relationships, social support, and patterns of
cognitive aging in healthy, high-functioning older adults:
MacArthur studies of successful aging. Health Psychology,
20, 243–255.
Uchino, B.N., Cacioppo, J.T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K. (1996).
The relationship between social support and physiological
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 A.J. Gow et al.: Social Support and Successful Aging 115

processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mecha- ment determine cognitive decline in community-dwelling
nisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, Spanish older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 58B, S93–S100.
119, 488–531.
van Gelder, B.M., Tijhuis, M., Kalmijn, S., Giampaoli, S., Nis-
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.103 - Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:16:30 PM - Universitätsbibliothek LMU München IP Address:129.187.254.47

sinen, A., & Kromhout, D. (2006). Marital status and living

situation during a 5-year period are associated with a subse- Ian J. Deary
quent 10-year cognitive decline in older men: The FINE
Study. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 61B, Department of Psychology
213–219. School of Philosophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences
Wilson, R.S., Beckett, L.A., Barnes, L.L., Schneider, J.A., Bach, University of Edinburgh
J., Evans, D.A. et al. (2002). Individual differences in rates of 7 George Square
change in cognitive abilities of older persons. Psychology and Edinburgh EH8 9JZ
Aging, 17, 179–193. Scotland, UK
Zunzunegui, M.-V., Alvarado, B.E., Del Ser, T., & Otero, A. Tel. +44 131 650 3452
(2003). Social networks, social integration, and social engage- E-mail Ian.Deary@ed.ac.uk

© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2007; Vol. 28(3):103–115