The Influence of Aging On Preferences For Sequences of Mixed Affective Events PDF

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
J. Behav. Dec. Making, 24: 293–314 (2011)

Published online 26 February 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bdm.695
The Influence of Aging on Preferences for

Sequences of Mixed Affective Events
AIMEE DROLET1*, LORAINE LAU-GESK2 and CAROL SCOTT1
1
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
2
University of California, Irvine, USA
ABSTRACT
Research on preferences among sequences of mixed affective events has mostly used
young adults as participants. Given differences due to aging in people’s ability to
regulate emotion, one could expect differences due to aging in preferences for different
sequences. Study 1 demonstrated age-related differences in how older adults (age 65
and older) versus young adults (age 18–25) choose to order mixed affective events that
will occur over time. The tendency to choose sequences in which the final event is
positive was greater among older adults versus young adults. And, more so than young
adults, older adults preferred that the positive and negative events in a sequence be
separated in time by a neutral event. Studies 2–3 investigated age-related differences
in overall retrospective evaluations of presented sequences of mixed affective events.
In contrast to young adults, older adults’ retrospective evaluations were not affected
by: (1) whether the final trend of the sequence improved monotonically; (2) whether the
last event in the sequence was positive; or (3) the temporal proximity of positive and
negative events in the sequence. Results of Study 3 suggest that these age-related
differences are due to differences in older (vs. young) adults’ ability to regulate
emotion. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words aging; affective forecasting; emotion regulation; retrospective judgment;

sequential choice
INTRODUCTION
Past research has shown that people generally prefer sequences of affective events that end positively. For
example, when faced with a hypothetical choice between sequences that end with a loss versus a gain, people
tend to choose the latter (Simonson, 1990). Further, when choosing among possible sequences, people prefer
those that postpone the better outcome until the end (Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993). They become more far-
sighted, for instance preferring a potential wage profile that reflects an increasing rather than decreasing trend
* Correspondence to: Aimee Drolet, UCLA Anderson School of Management, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
E-mail: adrolet@anderson.ucla.edu
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

294 Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
for an otherwise identical job that pays equal in the long run (Loewenstein & Sicherman, 1991; but see
Frederick & Loewenstein, 2008).
These findings for people’s preferences among prospective sequences of affective events parallel findings
for judgments of sequences of hedonic events that people have already experienced (Ariely, 1998;
Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993). For example, Lau-Gesk (2005) found that people who had tasted three jelly
bean flavors in different orders evaluated the overall hedonic experience more favorably when the sequence
of affective events was improving (e.g., ‘‘bad’’ first, ‘‘so-so’’ second, and ‘‘good’’ last) versus worsening
(e.g., ‘‘good’’ first, ‘‘so-so’’ second, and ‘‘bad’’ last). Overall retrospective evaluations were especially
favorable when: (1) improvement occurred near the end of the sequence (the final trend) and (2) the last event
in the sequence (the end) was positive versus neutral or negative.
These well-established results notwithstanding, the majority of research in this area has used young adults
(age 18–25) as participants. However, there are large differences due to aging in the degree to which people
attend to and manage their emotional experiences (Gross et al., 1997). Accordingly, one might expect to see
differences in how older adults versus young adults judge sequences of affective events. The present research
tests for age-related differences in how people order prospective sequences of mixed affective events and in
how people judge given sequences of mixed affective events in retrospect. In addition, it provides evidence
that these age-related differences in preferences for sequences of affective events reflect changes in emotion
regulation processes due to aging.
Aging and emotion focus

As people age, they come to focus more on emotion. Numerous studies indicate that aging is associated with
an increase in people’s motivation to attend to emotions and emotional information versus non-emotional
information such as facts (for a review, see Mather, 2004). Undirected, older adults tend to adopt a more
subjective and evaluative processing style, whereas young adults tend to adopt a more objective and factual
processing style (Isaacowitz, Charles, & Carstensen, 2000). As a result, older adults are better able to
acknowledge their emotions and integrate their emotions with their thoughts and beliefs compared to young
adults (Blanchard-Fields, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, 1998; Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe, & Bulka, 1989).
Researchers have offered multiple reasons for older adults’ increased focus on emotion. Much of their
research has centered on cognitive decline as the primary reason for aging’s increasing effect on the tendency
to focus on emotion-based information. Studies have shown that, compared to young adults, older adults have
decreased attentional ability and memory, including sensory, working, short-term, long-term, and remote
memory (for a review, see Poon, 1985). As a result, older adults are less able than young adults to process data
deeply and elaborately (Hasher & Zacks, 1988). These short-falls in cognition allow older adults to become
side-tracked by emotion—unable to stick to the facts. For example, decreased attentional ability has been
linked to an increase in the activation of non-goal paths which results in greater competition for target ideas at
retrieval (Isaacowitz et al., 2000) and, correspondingly, more intrusions of irrelevant and peripheral
information. Past research in decision making has often treated emotional information as peripheral to
decision tasks (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
However, cognitive performance is not the only thing that changes with age. Recent research has
demonstrated significant age-related changes in motivation that, in addition to changes in cognition, influence
how older adults versus young adults process information (e.g., Isaacowitz et al., 2000). Specifically, older
adults place a heavier emphasis on personal values and experiences (Labouvie-Vief & Blanchard-Fields,
1982). This heavier emphasis influences attentional processes, leading them to focus more on emotions and
emotional information.
One motivation-based reason for the older adults’ emphasis on emotion is maturation. As people age, they
mature and develop wisdom. With wisdom development comes a more complex understanding of emotions
and of how in real life facts are often inextricably entwined with emotions. As we age, then, emotions become
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 293–314 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
A. Drolet et al. Aging and Preferences for Sequences of Affective Events 295
more useful information (Schwarz & Clore, 1996). They are more likely to be perceived as relevant and not
incidental to a wider variety of decisions.
Another motivation-based reason for older adults’ increased focus on emotion is the perception of the
shortness of the life-span. According to socioemotional selectivity theory, a view that time is limited leads
people to shift their attention toward emotion (Carstensen, 1992). In particular, people who view time as
limited tend to be more present-oriented and focused on what can be experienced and enjoyed now
(Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). They devote more effort to deriving emotional meaning and are
more focused on affective gain (positive emotion) and on avoiding affective loss (negative emotion). In
contrast, people who view time as expansive tend to be more future-oriented and focused on what can be
experienced and enjoyed later. They seek novelty and thus appear less sensitive to affective loss (Fung,
Carstensen, & Lutz, 1999). Older adults are more likely to describe their futures as limited, recognizing they
may be nearing the ends of their lives (Carstensen & Lang, 1997).
Aging and increased emotion regulation

Research has linked age-related increases in emotion focus to age-related increases in emotion regulation
activities. For example, research on socio-emotional selectivity theory suggests that as people age and their
time horizon view becomes more limited, knowledge acquisition becomes a less salient goal and less likely
pursuit. Emotional well-being becomes a more salient goal and more likely pursuit. This change in goal
pursuit serves an adaptive function with older adults seeking to maximize gains and minimize risks in
emotional domains. The increased attention paid to emotion due to a limited time horizon view results in
increased attempts to manage emotions, especially negative ones.
In general, emotion regulation appears to be a more central goal for older adults, and older adults appear
more likely than young adults to engage in emotion regulation activities (Gross et al., 1997). These activities
have been classified into two broad groups: (1) antecedent-focused emotion regulation activities, and (2)
response-focused emotion regulation activities (Gross, 1998). Antecedent-focused emotion regulation
activities involve people’s attempts to avoid unwanted emotional experiences, both mental and physical, by
evading negative emotion-prompting sources. People try to prevent negative emotion from occurring in the
first place by making choices that help them avoid situations that are antecedents of negative emotional
outcomes (Luce, Payne, & Bettman, 1999). People will also avoid encounters with other people who are
known to provoke feelings of anger, fear, or sadness (Gross et al., 1997).
Older adults’ choice making is especially influenced by the desire to avoid negative emotion. For example,
older adults seek less variety when making choices for future consumption versus immediate consumption
(Novak & Mather, 2007). This pattern of findings appears due to older adults’ desire to avoid choices that
might negatively impact their current emotional state. By choosing less variety, older adults sidestep the
uncertainty surrounding future preferences. This uncertainty is experienced as negative, and older adults can
avoid feeling negative by choosing the familiar. Older adults also gravitate toward the familiar in their
interpersonal interactions. More so than young adults, they limit their interpersonal interactions to those with
whom they are already familiar and care most about (Frederickson & Carstensen, 1990). By doing so, they
expose themselves to emotional experiences that are generally predictable and positive (Carstensen &
Charles, 1998). Advertising research provides another example that suggests that older adults are more
determined to avoid negative emotions. Older adults prefer ads that describe how a product can help them
avoid a negative emotional experience versus achieve a positive one (Williams & Drolet, 2005).
Response-focused regulation activities involve people’s attempts to cope with negative emotions already
experienced by altering their responses to them (Gross, 1998). For example, studies show that cancer patients
can easily feel depressed about their situation. However, their positive psychological well-being can remain
in tact by suppressing the negative emotions associated with being ill (Taylor & Brown, 1988). In addition,
people can reappraise an emotional situation that has already occurred (Gross, 1998). For example,
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
reclassifying a horror film as ‘camp’ can make feelings of fright seem silly, misplaced, and not worth
remembering.
Older adults appear better able than young adults to endure negative emotions. Studies show that older
adults recall fewer negative versus positive images (Charles, Mather, & Carstensen, 2003). Indeed, findings
of fMRI studies imply that older adults have reduced encoding of negative emotional experiences. Older
adults show less activation in the amygdala for negative (vs. positive) images. This pattern of activation does
not occur among young adults (Mather & Carstensen, 2003).
People feel discomfort in response to mixed emotional experiences (Aaker, Drolet, & Griffin, 2008), and
this discomfort can trigger coping strategies to reduce or resolve this feeling (Folkman et al., 1986). Older
adults also appear better able than young adults to endure the discomfort of mixed emotional experiences. For
example, mixed emotional advertisements appeal more to older adults than to young adults, and older adults
feel less emotional discomfort in response to such ads (Williams & Aaker, 2002). These findings appear due
to the increased tendency among older adults to accept contradiction, especially in the domain of emotions.
This ability to accept the co-occurrence of positive and negative emotions, similar to the ability to accept
that affect and cognition are often intertwined, may reflect a maturation process, or wisdom, that develops
with age. Older adults’ chronically more limited time horizon perspective may also be responsible for the
increased tendency to experience simultaneous mixtures of positive and negative emotions, or poignancy
(Ersner-Hershfield, Mikels, Sullivan, & Carstensen, 2008), without additional discomfort. Limited time
horizons, when coupled with the loss of something emotionally meaningful, can produce feelings of both
happiness and sadness. Furthermore, older adults’ increased endurance of mixed emotional events can be
attributed to their decreased focus on lower-level units of meaning (i.e., individual affective events) versus
higher-order units of meaning (i.e., overall affective experience) (Labouvie-Vief & Schell, 1982).
Overview of studies
In summary, as a result of their increased attempts to regulate their emotions, both through antecedent-
focused and response-focused regulation activities, older adults tend to be more successful than their younger
counterparts at emotion management. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have found that older
adults report experiencing less negative emotion (e.g., anxiety) compared to young adults (Gross et al., 1997).
Studies have also shown that older adults experience positive emotion as often as (Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz,
2001) or more often than young adults (Mroczek & Kolarz, 1998; see also, Lawton, Kleban, & Dean, 1992;
Ryff, 1989).
Accordingly, in view of the research on aging and the regulation of emotional experiences, we expected to
see age-related differences in people’s judgments of sequences of mixed affective events. In Study 1, we
examined how young adults and older adults choose to order sequences of mixed affective events. We
presented participants with a task in which they were asked to order three distinct affective events: one
positive, one neutral, and one negative. We expected that young participants would order the events in such a
way so as to experience improvement. Specifically, their most frequently-chosen ordering of events would
begin with the negative event and end with the positive event. We expected that the older participants would
select this order even more, as they tend to be more likely than the young adults to engage in antecedent-
focused emotion regulation and manage prospective emotional experiences so that these experiences are less
negative and more positive.
In Study 2, we had participants retrospectively evaluate different sequences of mixed affective events we
presented to them. We asked participants to imagine experiencing one of four sequences and then provided an
overall evaluation of the experience. Given past research, we expected that the retrospective evaluations of
young adult participants would be influenced by specific aspects of the sequence depending on whether its
final trend improved monotonically and ended with the most positive event or not. However, we predicted that
such aspects would have comparatively less influence on the retrospective evaluations of older adult
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
participants due to their increased tendency and ability to engage in response-focused emotion regulation
and, correspondingly, their increased tolerance of mixed emotional experiences.
In Study 3, we investigated whether age-related differences in preferences for sequences of mixed
affective events are associated with age-related improvements in emotion regulation ability. Study 3
participants retrospectively evaluated sequences of different events than those events evaluated in Study 2.
Study 2 participants considered affective events that originated from the same source. Study 3 participants
considered affective events that originated from different sources. Past research has shown that the
evaluations of sequences of mixed affective events that arise from more dissimilar sources are influenced by
the degree to which a positive event and a negative event occur closer versus farther apart in time (Lau-Gesk,
2005). This research suggests people, who have limited emotional resources, prefer to experience positive
and negative events closer together (Linville & Fisher, 1991) in order to replenish the resources depleted by
the negative event. We expected that the temporal proximity of positive and negative events in a sequence
would influence the evaluations of older participants less so compared to young participants in view of older
participants’ better ability to regulate their emotions on their own. Study 3 participants also completed
positive and negative emotion measures, as well as measures of emotional arousal and recall.
STUDY 1
Method
Ninety-one participants (approximately half female) were asked to order three affective events of which one
was positive, one was negative, and one was neutral. Participants were either young adults (age 18–25;
Mage ¼ 21; n ¼ 35) or older adults (age 65–90; Mage ¼ 73; n ¼ 56). Young adults were recruited from a large
West coast university and paid $5 in exchange for participating. Older adults were recruited from a
Midwestern library and participated in exchange for a $15 donation to the library.
In Study 1 (and in Studies 2–3), we sought to control for participants’ level of education. Young
participants were college students. Older participants reported having at least graduated from high school. We
also sought to control for time-of-day effects on intellectual functioning by having older participants
complete their surveys in the morning hours when they are typically at their peak cognitive performance and
most like young adults in terms of cognitive ability (Yoon, 1997). Since they were regular library patrons,
they were likely to be intellectually active. Last, we excluded older adults who reported having any illness or
medical condition that might affect intellectual functioning.
Participants read the following instructions:
Imagine that you and a friend are dining at a ‘‘tapas’’ restaurant, a restaurant that serves appetizer-like
dishes. You order three dishes. If you know that one of the dishes is going to taste excellent, the other so-so,
and the other not very good at all, to maximize your overall dining experience, in what order do you want
to taste the dishes?
Participants were asked to order the events such that they maximized their overall happiness. They were
asked to list which of the three dishes they would eat first, second, and last.
Results and discussion

Given the three dishes, there were six prospective sequences that participants could choose to arrange. There
were no significant effects of gender. Table 1 shows the share of each sequence by age group. As expected,
young participants favored ordering the dishes such that the ‘‘not very good at all’’ dish came first, the ‘‘so-
so’’ dish second, and the ‘‘excellent’’ dish last (37.1%). Also, as predicted, older participants were
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Table 1. Mean percent of each sequence pattern by order by age group in Study 1
Age group
Young Older
Sequence order
þ, 0, 31.4 32.1
þ, , 0 5.7 3.8
0, þ, 2.9 1.9
, þ, 0 5.7 0
, 0, þ 37.1 56.6
0, , þ 17.1 5.7

Key: ‘‘excellent’’ dish ¼ þ; ‘‘so-so’’ dish ¼ 0; ‘‘not very good at all’’ dish ¼ .
significantly more likely to order the dishes according to this pattern (56.6%; x2 ¼ 3.83, df 5, p < .05,
f ¼ .21).
Table 2 lists the mean percent share of each dish (‘‘excellent,’’ ‘‘so-so,’’ and ‘‘not very good at all’’) by
choice order by age group. Interestingly, in terms of the choice of which particular dish to experience in which
particular order, the only significant age-related difference (at the p < .05 level) was that older (vs. young)
participants were significantly more likely to order the ‘‘so-so’’ dish second (88.7 vs. 68.6%; x2 ¼ 5.47, df 1,
p < .01, f ¼ .25). We discuss this particular result in the General Discussion, as it suggests that older adults
might be better at constructing sequences of mixed affective events that will be more favorably evaluated
Table 2. Mean percent dish selection by order by age group in Study 1
Age group
Young Older
Excellent dish
First 37.1 35.9
Second 8.6 1.9
Last 54.3 62.3
So-so dish
First 20.0 7.6
Second 68.6 88.7
Last 11.4 3.8
Not very good at all dish
First 42.9 56.6
Second 22.9 9.4
Last 34.3 34.0
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
retrospectively. In summary, Study 1 found that older participants had an increased preference for improving
sequences that end positively.
STUDY 2
Study 1 established that both younger and older participants would a priori choose to order a mixed effect
sequence in the same way, with the older group exhibiting less variability in their selection. In Study 2, we
again test age-related differences in judgments of mixed affective sequences. However, in this study we
examine the degree to which the retrospective evaluations of a sequence of mixed valenced events reported by
older versus young adults are less susceptible to certain aspects of sequences. We hypothesized that older
adults, at least in part because of their greater ability to manage their emotions, would be less affected by the
order of the sequence of events than young adults. Retrospective evaluations of young adults would be more
positive in those conditions where the order of the events more closely matched their a priori preferred
ordering. In addition, we tested this hypothesis using a different tasting context.
Method
There were 122 participants (approximately half female) in Study 2. Young participants (age 18–25;
Mage ¼ 23; n ¼ 76) were students at a large West coast university. They were paid $5 to participate. Older
participants (age 65–89; Mage ¼ 73; n ¼ 46) were visitors to a Midwestern library. They participated in
exchange for a $15 donation to the library.
Participants were asked to imagine they had eaten three grapes from the same vine. They read three
scenarios that have been used effectively in previous research (Lau-Gesk 2005). Each scenario corresponded
to one of three affective responses (positive, negative, or neutral). The positive response scenario read:
As soon as I popped this grape in my mouth, quick bursts of tangy sweet juices poured out and stimulated
every one of my tingling taste buds. Yummmmm..I wanted to savor this experience.
The neutral response scenario read:
As I popped this grape in my mouth, only a little bit of sweet juice trickled out, and the bit of juice didn’t
elicit much of a response from my taste buds. Pretty mediocre..I was okay with the experience.
And the negative response scenario read:
As soon as I put this grape in my mouth, a sudden flow of really sour and salty flavors burst out of no where
and agitated my taste buds to no end. Yuckkkkk..I wanted to forget about this experience.
Participants were assigned to one of four conditions that corresponded to four different sequential
orderings of the three hedonic events. The four different orderings were created by varying whether the final
trend of the sequence improved versus declined and whether the improvement or decline was monotonic or
not. In summary, the four patterns tested were: (1) negative first, neutral second, and positive last; (2) positive
first, neutral second, and negative last; (3) positive first, negative second, and neutral last; and (4) negative
first, positive second, and neutral last. These same four patterns were investigated in previous research
(Lau-Gesk, 2005). Also, by comparing responses to these four patterns, we eliminate a potential confound:
the remaining two (of the six possible sequence patterns) would also differ in that a sequence began with a
neutral hedonic experience.
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Following the sequential mixed affective experience, participants were asked to provide an overall
retrospective evaluation of the experience using a three-item scale (not at all likeable-likeable, unfavorable-
favorable, and bad-good; 1–7).
Then, as a manipulation check, participants answered questions about the extent to which each of the three
response scenarios (positive, neutral, and negative) made them feel positive (1 ¼ not at all pleasant, happy;
7 ¼ very pleasant, happy) and negative (1 ¼ not at all unpleasant, unhappy; 7 ¼ very unpleasant, unhappy).
Last, we collected demographic information.
Results
There were no significant effects of gender. The results are based on a 2 (age group: young vs. older) 4
(Mixed Affective Sequence Order) between-subjects ANOVA. The four sequential orderings varied by
whether the final trend was monotonically versus non-monotonically improving or declining and whether the
end was positive, negative, or neutral.
Manipulation checks
As in previous research (Lau-Gesk, 2005), analysis on the general affective response index (pleasant-
positive; reverse scored unpleasant-negative; a ¼ .95) showed that the mixed affective experiences
were experienced in the order intended (all ps < .03; details available upon request). There were no
significant differences due to age in participants’ ratings of the positive, negative, and neutral events in
the sequence.
Overall retrospective evaluations

As expected, ANOVA found a significant two-way interaction between age and the sequential ordering of
the mixed affective events on overall retrospective evaluations (a ¼ .87; F(3, 121) ¼ 3.74, p < .01; f ¼ .13).
See Figure 1; Table 3 for means by sequence order. Further analyses revealed that the order in which the
mixed affective events was experienced influenced preferences among young participants (F(3, 79) ¼ 9.29,
p < .01; f ¼ .16). As expected, young participants’ preferences were strongly influenced by the final trend
and end of the experience. Evaluations were higher for sequences with a monotonically improving final
trend and in which the most positive event occurred last (M ¼ 4.91). Planned comparisons revealed that
young adults were more favorable toward the mixed affective experience in which the order of events was
negative-neutral-positive than toward any of the other three sequential experiences, including positive-
negative-neutral (M ¼ 4.55; F(1, 79) ¼ 4.41, p < .04, f ¼ .13), negative-positive-neutral (M ¼ 4.05; F(1,
79) ¼ 5.11, p < .03, f ¼ .14), and positive-neutral-negative (M ¼ 3.34; F(1, 79) ¼ 23.04, p < .01, f ¼ .20).
Further support was found for final trend effects when we compared the two sequences where the neutral
event came last, thereby stimulating feelings of final improvement as opposed to final decline (Ms ¼ 4.55
vs. 4.05; F(1, 79) ¼ 3.80, p < .05, f ¼ .13). Finally, the end of the experience for the two sequences
reflecting final trend decline produced more favorable evaluations for the sequence in which the neutral
event was experienced last rather than the negative event (Ms ¼ 4.55 vs. 3.34; F(1, 79) ¼ 16.89, p < .01,
f ¼ .18).
A very different pattern of results emerged for the older participants who were not responsive to the
sequential ordering of the mixed affective events. None of the pairwise comparisons were significant (all
Fs < 1). The mean evaluations for the four sequences were as follows: (1) negative-neutral-positive
sequence (improving final trend with positive event last) ¼ 3.69; 2) positive-neutral-negative (declining
final trend with the negative event last) ¼ 4.32; 3) positive-negative-neutral (improving final trend with the
neutral event last) ¼ 3.95; and 4) negative-positive-neutral (declining final trend with the neutral event
last) ¼ 3.67.
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Figure 1. Mean overall retrospective evaluation by final trend and temporal proximity by age group in Study 3.
Table 3. Mean overall retrospective evaluations by order by age group in Study 2

Age group
Young Older
Sequence order
3.69
, 0, þ 4.91
3.67
, þ, 0 4.05
4.32
þ, 0, 3.34
3.95
þ, , 0 4.45

Key: positive event ¼ þ; neutral event ¼ 0; negative event ¼ .
Discussion
Study 2 revealed age-related differences in people’s overall retrospective evaluations of given sequences of
mixed events. In contrast to those of young adult participants, the evaluations of older participants were
unaffected by whether the final trend of the sequence was monotonically improving or declining and whether
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
the end of the sequence was positive or negative. The results of Study 2, coupled with those of Study 1,
suggest that age moderates judgments of sequences of mixed affective events.
Furthermore, the results of Study 2 appear consistent with research on the increasing effect of aging on
emotion regulation processes. For example, one could attribute older adults’ relatively flat evaluative
response to different sequences of affective events to increased response-focused emotion regulation
activities, such as the suppression of negative emotions (Gross, 1998). However, Studies 1 and 2 provide only
indirect evidence as to the relationship between age-related differences in preferences for sequences of mixed
affective events and age-related differences in emotion regulation activities.
Specifically, in Study 1, older participants were significantly more likely than young participants to choose
to experience the negative event first, the positive event last, and the neutral event in between the positive and
negative events, thereby creating a sequence whose final trend was monotonically improving and whose end
was positive. In Study 2, older participants’ retrospective evaluations were unaffected by the temporal
distance between the positive event and negative event in the sequences. This result is inconsistent with those
of previous studies that have demonstrated that the temporal proximity of positive and negative events in
sequences affects retrospective evaluations of sequences (Lau-Gesk, 2005). Taken together, the results of
Studies 1and 2 indicate that older adults have different preferences with respect to the timing of differently-
valenced affective events, and that they may be able to overcome structural conditions that would lead to less
favorable evaluations. These different preferences, we suggest, can be attributed to age-related differences in
emotion regulation activity. The idea that these different preferences are due to age differences in cognitive
performance appears less compelling in view of Study 2’s failure to find differences between older and young
participants in the ability to recall the nature of each of the events in the sequence. The purpose of Study 3 was
to provide more direct process evidence.
STUDY 3
The importance of timing

According to Linville and Fisher’s (1991) renewable resources model, closer temporal proximity between
positive and negative emotional events helps people replenish the resources they expend when dealing with
negative events. Effective replenishment occurs when the positive event is experienced soon after or before
the negative event. The renewable resources model indicates what people should prefer, i.e., experiencing the
positive and negative events as close in temporal proximity as possible, making no distinction between
predictions for mixed gains and those for mixed losses.
Based on research that has investigated how individuals cope with stressful events (e.g., Rodin & Salovey,
1989), the renewable resources model assumes that: (1) people seek to maximize positive affective outcomes
and minimize negative affective outcomes; (2) negative affective outcomes carry more weight than positive
affective outcomes; and (3) the impact of positive and negative outcome events on preferences and decisions is
restricted to a limited amount of resources. In other words, people possess a limited amount of loss-buffering
resources that are consumed in the process of dealing with negative events. However, these resources are
naturally renewable over time. These loss buffers include physiological, cognitive, emotional, and social
resources that act to moderate the adverse effects of negative events. Positive events can act as buffers to
negative events.
In addition to having limited loss-buffering resources, people have limited gain-savoring resources consumed
in the process of experiencing positive events closely in time (Linville & Fischer, 1991). These leftover resources
can replenish the pool of loss-buffering resources. Positive events provide resources needed to withstand negative
events (Rodin & Salovey, 1989). By implication, when positive and negative affective outcomes occur together,
the gain creates additional loss-buffering resources that will dampen or moderate the adverse effect of the loss.
Thus, people should prefer experiencing positive and negative events as close in time as possible. To test their
model, participants were asked to compare a series of pairs of affective events and to indicate whether they
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
preferred to experience the events separately (1 week apart) or combined (in 1 day). Linville and Fischer (1991)
consistently found that people prefer to experience positive and negative events close in temporal proximity,
despite whether the positive or negative event occurred first, the mixed outcome events represented mixed gains
or mixed losses, and the events belonged in the same domain or different domains.
In summary, the renewable resources model offers an emotional resource explanation for the underlying
role of temporal proximity in intertemporal choice and preferences for pairs of mixed affective events. From
this perspective, individuals have limited but renewable resources for both positive and negative affective
outcomes. Not only does positive affect act as a buffer against negative affect (Rodin & Salovey, 1989), it also
replenishes resources needed to counteract negative affect. As a result, the time lapse in between the arousal
of positive affect versus negative affect is critical in and of itself and does not simply reflect a perceptual
transformation taking place of either mental integration or mental segregation. The longer the time in
between, the less able the positive affect can replenish the resources needed to withstand the negative affect.
The shorter the time in between, the more able the positive affect can replenish the resources needed to
withstand the negative affect.
Aging and the influence of timing

Empirical studies that have supported this model have used young adults as participants. Some of this
research has demonstrated that, for sequential experiences in which there are both positive and negative
events, the temporal proximity between the positive and negative events influences people’s retrospective
evaluations of the whole experience (Lau-Gesk, 2005). Given differences due to aging in people’s ability to
cope with mixed affective outcomes, one could expect to see differences in how older adults versus young
adults respond to sequences of events that differ in terms of the temporal proximity of positive and negative
events.
Yet, Study 2 found no such differences. The young adult participants showed no increase in their overall
retrospective evaluations for the sequences depending on whether the positive event and the negative event
were temporally closer or farther. However, Study 2 results for the young adult participants are consistent
with research by Lau-Gesk (2005). She showed that a variable she refers to as perception of affect source
similarity (PASS) moderates preferences for experiencing positive and negative events closer versus farther
apart in time. When the event sources are viewed as similar, as was the case in Study 2 (eating grapes from the
same vine), the end and final trend of the sequence significantly influence overall retrospective evaluations.
However, when the event sources are viewed as dissimilar, the temporal proximity of positive and negative
events in the sequence influences overall retrospective evaluations. Thus, the role of the neutral event changes
according to PASS. Under low PASS, a neutral affective event that occurs between a positive and a negative
event serves as a barrier to resource replenishment and the ability to cope. Under high PASS, a neutral
hedonic event is experienced as part of the ‘‘flow’’ of events, as it contributes to the overall experiential
pattern comprised of distinct affective events.
As discussed above, older adults are better able to cope with negative emotional experiences (e.g.,
Labouvie-Vief & Schell, 1982; Williams & Aaker, 2002). Accordingly, unlike young adults, older adults may
be less affected by the temporal proximity of positive and negative events in a sequence. Study 3 tested this
proposition. In Study 3, young and older participants retrospectively evaluate sequences of positive, neutral,
and negative events. Unlike in Study 2, participants rated sequences of events that were low in PASS,
specifically assortments of chocolates. Lau-Gesk (2005) provided evidence that people view these particular
stimuli as relatively low in PASS compared to stimuli such as grapes from the same vine.
Study 3 also included several measures of emotional outcomes. Specifically, Study 3 participants
completed measures of positive emotion, negative emotion, and emotional arousal. Participants also
responded to an open-ended question asking them to recall their imaginary chocolate experience. Study 3
examined the effects of age, temporal proximity, and their interaction on these emotional outcome measures,
in addition to examining their effects on overall retrospective evaluations of the sequence of events.
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Method
There were 198 participants (approximately half female). Young participants (age 18–25; Mage ¼ 20;
n ¼ 113) were students at large Midwest and West coast universities. They were paid $5 to participate. Older
participants were visitors to public libraries located in the Midwest and West or members of book clubs
located on the West coast (age 65–92; Mage ¼ 68; n ¼ 85). They participated in exchange for a $15 donation to
the library or book club.
Participants were asked to imagine they had three pieces of chocolate from an assorted box. They read
three scenarios. These scenarios were used effectively in previous research (see Lau-Gesk 2005). Each
scenario corresponded to one of three affective responses (positive, negative, or neutral). The positive
response scenario read:
Eating this piece of chocolate was a near-religious experience. It was the closest I would ever get to tasting
pure chocolate perfection. I was overwhelmed by an incredible fusion of deep bitter sweet chocolate
flavors. The moment I put the chocolate in my mouth I knew I had gotten a glimpse of what heaven is
like.’’!
The neutral response scenario read:
This was a pretty standard piece of chocolate, a run-of-the-mill chocolate experience. The chocolate flavor
took awhile to taste and came at a fairly consistent pace. There were no complex bittersweet chocolate
flavor interactions. I could only taste plain and simple chocolate, which is okay. Just nothing to get excited
about.
The negative response scenario read:
It took a lot of inner strength to swallow this piece of chocolate, truly a bottom of the barrel experience.
The flavors were very slow to develop in my mouth, and when they finally did develop, I could only taste
wax and cardboard. There was no sign of chocolate amid the overpowering synthetic flavors. It was awful.
Participants were assigned to one of four conditions that corresponded to four different sequential
orderings of the three affective events. The same four orderings used in Study 2 were used. Following
the sequential mixed affective experience, participants were asked to provide an overall retrospective
evaluation of the experience using a three-item scale (not at all likeable–likeable, unfavorable–favorable, and
bad–good; 1–7).
Next, participants rated how the experience made them feel. Participants rated their how much positive
emotion (enjoy and satisfied; not at all ¼ 1, very much ¼ 7; r ¼ .76) and negative emotion (disgust and
sadness; not at all ¼ 1, very much ¼ 7; r ¼ .78) they felt. Participants also rated how aroused they felt (not at
all ¼ 1, very much ¼ 7). In light of Linville and Fischer’s (1991) model, we viewed the positive emotion and
arousal measures as resource replenishment measures. Participants with more disposable resources should
score higher on these measures compared to participants with fewer resources.
Participants then completed an open-ended recall question. Specifically, they were asked to recall as much
as they could about their chocolate experience without looking back.
Participants then completed manipulation checks. As in Study 2, participants answered questions about
the extent to which the first, second, and last of the three response scenarios (positive, neutral, and negative)
made them feel positive (1 ¼ not at all pleasant, happy; 7 ¼ very pleasant, happy) and negative (1 ¼ not at all
unpleasant, unhappy; 7 ¼ very unpleasant, unhappy). And, as in Study 2, participants completed these
measures in the absence of the response scenarios and, in this way, the manipulation checks also serve as
checks on participants’ recall of the scenarios.
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Afterwards, participants answered questions about their liking for chocolate and their chocolate eating
habits. Specifically, they were asked how often they ate chocolate, the extent to which they liked chocolates,
and whether they considered themselves to be a chocolate connoisseur. Last, participants answered
demographic questions. Participants were later debriefed as to the purpose of the study.
Results and discussion

There were no significant effects of gender. Further, there were no significant effects of age on participants’
liking for chocolate or their chocolate eating habits. The results are based on a 2 (age group: young vs.
elderly) 2 (temporal proximity: closer vs. farther apart) 2 (final trend: improving vs. declining) between-
subjects ANOVA.
Manipulation checks
As in previous research (Lau-Gesk 2005), analysis on the general affective response index (pleasant-positive;
reverse scored unpleasant-negative; a ¼ .91) showed that the sequential mixed affective experiences were
experienced in the sequence intended (all ps < .05; details available upon request). There were no significant
differences due to age in participants’ experience of sequential ordering or of the valence of each of the
components in the sequence.
Overall retrospective evaluations

As expected, a two-way interaction between age and temporal proximity of the mixed affective events
emerged on overall retrospective evaluation (a ¼ .90; F(1, 189) ¼ 4.80, p < .03, f ¼ .11). Young participants’
evaluations were higher for mixed affective experiences that reflected closer temporal proximity between
positive and negative affect (M ¼ 4.75) rather than farther apart (M ¼ 4.16), regardless of final trend (F(1,
189) ¼ 6.45, p < .01, f ¼ .11). These results support the idea that positive and negative affective outcomes
experienced closer in temporal proximity are more favorably evaluated than when they are experienced
farther apart. See Table 4 for individual cell means.
Table 4. Mean overall retrospective evaluations by order by age group in Study 3

Age group
Young Older
Sequence order
, 0, þ
4.31 4.45
, þ, 0 4.65 4.05
þ, 0, 4.00 4.41
þ, , 0 4.85 4.43

DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Table 5. Mean negative emotion responses by order by age group in Study 3

Age group
Young Older
Sequence order
, 0, þ
3.04 2.80
, þ, 0 3.11 2.84
þ, 0, 3.86 2.79
þ, , 0 3.47 3.19

A very different pattern of results emerged for the older participants. None of the pairwise comparisons
were significant (all Fs < 1). The mean evaluations for the four sequences were as follows: (1) negative-
neutral-positive sequence (improving final trend with positive event last) ¼ 4.45; (2) positive-neutral-
negative (declining final trend with the negative event last) ¼ 4.41; (3) positive-negative-neutral (improving
final trend with the neutral event last) ¼ 4.43; and (4) negative-positive-neutral (declining final trend with the
neutral event last) ¼ 4.05.
Emotion measures
Consistent with past research on aging and emotion (e.g., Gross et al., 1997), there was a main effect of age on
overall negative affect such that older participants (M ¼ 2.91) experienced less negative emotions than their
younger counterparts (M ¼ 3.37; F(1, 189) ¼ 4.67, p < .03, f ¼ .10); see Table 5 and Figure 2. However,
perhaps inconsistent with research on the impact of temporal proximity, there were no differences in the
amount of negative emotion experienced due to temporal proximity among young adults.
A similar two-way interaction between age and temporal proximity of the mixed affective events emerged
on the amount of positive emotions experienced (F(1, 189) ¼ 4.49, p < .04, f ¼ .10), supporting the idea that,
for young adults, the resources available for withstanding negative affect may be depleted but can be
replenished by the experience of a positive emotional event; see Table 6 and Figure 3. Specifically, young
participants’ positive emotions were higher for the mixed affective experiences that reflected closer temporal
proximity between positive and negative affect (M ¼ 4.44) rather than farther apart (M ¼ 4.08), regardless of
final trend (F(1, 189) ¼ 4.67, p < .03, f ¼ .10). In contrast, there were no significant differences due to
temporal proximity among older participants across the patterns (F < 1). The amount of positive emotion
experienced was not significantly different between the closer (M ¼ 4.22) versus farther apart (M ¼ 4.45)
temporal proximity conditions.
We also tested positive emotion as a mediator of the effect of temporal proximity on overall retrospective
evaluations separately for young and older participants. For young participants, we used Baron and Kenny’s
procedures for mediation (1986) and found that mixed affective experiences characterized by closer temporal
proximity between positive and negative affect generated more favorable evaluations compared to those
characterized by farther apart temporal proximity (b ¼ .31, t ¼ 2.77, p < .01). Further, we found that mixed
affective experiences reflecting closer temporal proximity increased positive emotional experiences relative
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Figure 2. Mean negative emotion responses by final trend and temporal proximity by age group in Study 3.
to those experiences that reflected farther temporal proximity (b ¼ .41, t ¼ 2.66, p < .01). Positive emotion
was marginally significant (b ¼ .34, t ¼ 1.80, p < .08), and temporal proximity was not (b ¼ .25, t ¼ 1.29,
p > .10) in a regression model that included both variables, indicating partial mediation. No such mediation
effect was found among older participants.
The pattern for arousal was similar to that found for positive emotion; see Table 7 and Figure 4. Analysis
found a significant two-way interaction between age and temporal proximity of the mixed affective events on
Table 6. Mean positive emotion responses by order by age group in Study 3

Age group
Young Older
Sequence order
, 0, þ
4.41 4.79
, þ, 0 4.67 4.02
þ, 0, 3.74 4.21
þ, , 0 4.20 4.42

DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Figure 3. Mean positive emotion responses by final trend and temporal proximity by age group in Study 3.
Table 7. Mean arousal emotion responses by order by age group in Study 3

Age group
Young Older
Sequence order
, 0, þ
3.63 4.15
, þ, 0 3.90 3.73
þ, 0, 3.39 3.73
þ, , 0 4.00 3.48

arousal (F(1, 189) ¼ 5.52, p < .02, f ¼ .11). Among young adults, arousal was elevated for mixed affective
experiences that reflected closer temporal proximity between positive and negative affect (M ¼ 3.95) rather
than farther (M ¼ 3.51), regardless of final trend (F(1, 189) ¼ 4.58, p < .03, f ¼ .10). In contrast, no
movement was found for older participants due to temporal proximity or across pattern conditions (F’s < 1).
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Figure 4. Mean arousal emotion responses by final trend and temporal proximity by age group in Study 3.
We examined whether emotional arousal mediated the effect of temporal proximity on overall
retrospective evaluations separately for young and older participants. For young participants, we found that
mixed affective experiences characterized by closer temporal proximity between positive and negative affect
generated more favorable evaluations compared to those characterized by farther temporal proximity
(b ¼ .65, t ¼ 2.69, p < .01). Next, we found that closer temporal proximity increased emotional arousal
relative to farther temporal proximity (b ¼ .55; t ¼ 2.30, p < .03. Arousal was marginally significant
(b ¼ 146; t ¼ 1.09, p < .06) and temporal proximity was not (b ¼ .32, t ¼ 1.31, p < .11) in a regression model
that included both variables, indicating mediation. Again, no such mediation effect was found among older
participants.
Recall measures
Alternatively, our main set of findings could be linked to age-related differences in cognition. Accordingly,
we tested for differences in recall of the imaginary mixed affective experience due to participants’ age. Older
participants might have found the experience task too cognitively-taxing. Thus, because they could not
remember the experience, they were unaffected by temporal proximity or final trend. We coded open-ended
recall into three categories: (1) positive affective event; (2) neutral affective event; and (3) negative affective
event. Analyses revealed no significant differences emerging within and across all three recall categories.
Further, none of the pairwise comparisons were significant. The grand mean recall for each affective event
ranged from .89 to .95; all Fs (1, 152) ranged from .01 to 2.01 with ps ranging from .12 to .97). In sum,
participants generally remembered the entire mixed affective experience, including the positive, negative,
and neutral affective events. These results indicate that participants, regardless of age, found the events
equally salient and similarly recalled each affective event. This finding casts doubt on the idea that the age-
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
related differences we observed for retrospective evaluations and emotional responses are due to age-related
differences in cognitive functioning.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Summary
Most studies on judgments of sequences of mixed affective events have used young adults as participants. The
present research tested for age-related differences in judgments of such sequences. Important for purposes of
generalizability, we tested for these effects within three different contexts. Based on past research on the
effects of aging on emotion regulation processes (Gross et al., 1997), we hypothesized that young adults and
older adults judge sequences of mixed affective events differently. We conducted three studies. Study 1
demonstrated age-related differences in people’s a priori temporal orderings of positive, negative, and neutral
events, such that the typical preference for monotonically improving sequences in which the last event is
positive was even greater among older adults. Study 2 revealed age-related differences in people’s overall
retrospective evaluations of given sequences of mixed events. In contrast to those of young adult participants,
the evaluations of older participants were unaffected by whether the final trend of the sequence was
improving and whether the end was positive.
Study 3 provided process evidence for our basic hypothesis. Specifically, Study 3 participants considered
affective events that originated from more dissimilar sources. Past research suggests that people who have
limited emotional resources prefer to experience positive and negative events closer together in time (Linville
& Fisher, 1991) and that young adults have more limited emotional resources compared to older adults (Gross
et al., 1997). Study 3 showed an effect of temporal proximity on the evaluations of young adults but not older
adults whose evaluations were flat across sequence conditions. The amount of older adults’ coping resources
(positive emotional arousal), like their overall retrospective evaluations, did not vary according to the degree
of temporal proximity of the positive and negative events. Further, across sequences, older adults reported
feeling less negative compared to young adults.
In summary, the results of these studies indicate that age moderates judgments of sequences of mixed
affective events. Taken together, these results appear consistent with research on the effects of increasing age
on emotion regulation processes. Older adults’ increased likelihood of choosing to experience the specific
sequence of mixed affective events that young adults prefer to have experienced in retrospect (i.e., negative
first, neutral second, and positive last) can be linked to increases in antecedent-focused emotion regulation
processes. Specifically, older adults exhibit a greater tendency and ability to forestall unwanted emotional
experiences by avoiding negative emotion-prompting sources.
Furthermore, older adults’ relatively flat evaluative response to different sequential patterns of mixed
affective events can be linked to increased reappraisal as opposed to suppression emotional regulation.
Research shows that attempts made to suppress negative emotions usually backfire, meaning that the negative
emotional experience typically intensifies as a result (Gross, 1998). In contrast, the reappraisal of negative
experiences appears more likely to lead to successful emotion management because negative emotion
intensity levels actually lower through the process of reappraisal (Gross, 1998; Ray, Wilhem & Gross, 2008).
Older adults appear better able to cope with experiencing a mix of positive, neutral, and negative affective
events by altering their emotional reactions to them, for example by engaging in a more abstract information
processing style (Labouvie-Vief & Schell, 1982).
Finally, the procedures used to select the participants, the methodology used, and the results of various
recall measures all argue against the possibility that these results are due only to decreased cognitive capacity
of older adults. All of the older participants were high school graduates and were frequent library patrons or
members of book clubs. Participants were also screened to eliminate anyone who had a medical condition that
might affect their ability to process information. The studies were conducted in the morning when older
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
adults would be at their peak cognitive functioning. The scenarios were few in number and very brief. The
time interval between reading the experimental scenarios and responding to measures was very brief.
Analyses of recall measures found no differences in memory for the different events due to participant age.
While it is almost impossible to completely rule out any effect of age-related cognitive deficits when studying
older adults, all of these precautions and results suggest that they were minimized in these studies.
Implications, limitations, and future research

The present research has several implications and limitations that suggest directions for future research. First,
the results of the present research have implications for the degree to which people’s prospective judgments
and retrospective judgments match and hence whether people are accurate with respect to such judgments. On
the whole, our results suggest that accuracy depends on one’s age and perspective. Study 1 found that older
adults are significantly more likely to prefer the sequence whose final trend improved monotonically and
whose end was positive. And, in Study 2 as in past research (Lau-Gesk, 2005), young adults’ retrospective
evaluations were highest for this particular sequence. Thus, older adults appear better able to construct
sequences that are more likely to be preferred in retrospect—but by young adults. Older adults’ own
evaluations did not differ depending on the order of events. In this way, older adults appear to be less accurate
with respect to the predictions they make about themselves.
One explanation for this pattern of results is learning. Specifically, over time people may have learned that
their memory for experiences is most positive for sequences that improve monotonically and end on a good
note. This lesson, however, applies less and less as people age. It is unclear if the lesson is eventually
forgotten in the face of continued feedback and, if not, why not. In general, future research might focus on the
degree to which older adults are better or worse at affective forecasting. For example, does aging influence the
incidence of durability bias (Gilbert et al. 1998; Wilson, Meyers, & Gilbert, 2001) and retrospective impact
bias (Wilson, Meyers, & Gilbert, 2003)? Second, the present research has implications for research on
people’s memory for mixed emotional experiences. Recent research indicates that memories of mixed
emotional experiences are biased depending on the extent to which a person can accommodate the negative
feelings of discomfort that arise due to the occurrence of mixed emotions (Aaker et al., 2008). Specifically,
people who experience significant emotional discomfort due to the experience of mixed emotions come to
remember the experience as more unipolar (i.e. all positive or all negative) as time passes (Thomas & Diener,
1990). Study 3 of the present research is consistent with other research that suggests that older adults
experience less discomfort in response to mixed emotional experiences (e.g., Labouvie-Vief & Schell, 1982).
This result implies, then, that older adults in the long run will be better able to remember mixed emotional
experiences as just that—mixed rather than unipolar. The present research did not measure the degree to
which participants recalled the overall experience as mixed versus unipolar. Future research might explore
this possibility.
Relatedly, research suggests that memory is often an inaccurate reflection of an online experience
(Thomas & Diener, 1990; Wilson et al., 2001). For example, in instances where the ‘‘peak’’ or ‘‘end’’ of an
online experience is negative, people tend to remember that overall experience as more negative than it
actually was (Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993). This tendency appears to be a function of the different kinds
of information people attend to when making evaluations online versus retrospectively (Robinson & Clore,
2002). When evaluating mixed emotion experiences online, people attend to both positive and negative
information and, consequently, often feel conflicted (Priester & Petty, 1996). However, not all people feel
conflicted as a result of feeling mixed emotions. Whether a person feels conflicted appears to be contingent on
people’s tendency to think in abstract ways (Hong & Lee, 2007). Given that older (vs. young) adults tend to
engage in more abstract thinking (Labouvie-Vief & Schell, 1982), one would expect their memories for the
events in the sequence themselves to be better preserved. The present research collected measures of recall
immediately after participants were presented with the sequence of events. However, according to this idea,
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
we should see less decay in the recall of older adults versus young adults. Future work is needed to test this
idea.
In addition to its implications, this research has limitations. To address them, additional experimentation is
needed. For example, based on past research, we hypothesized that there would be relatively less variation in
older adults’ retrospective evaluations of mixed affective sequences than in young adults’ evaluations. This
hypothesis is essentially a null hypothesis for older adults, and indeed we found no effects of final trend
(improving vs. worsening) or temporal proximity (closer vs. farther apart) on older adults’ evaluations of
different sequences of positive, neutral, and negative affective events. The principal limitation of predicting a
null result is well-known, namely that one cannot rule out all possible alternative explanations for the result.
However, in the present research, we provided strong ancillary evidence as to the underlying cause for our
results. In particular, our analysis of participants’ negative emotional responses to all of the sequences
revealed a significant negative effect of age on the amount of negative emotion participants experienced, with
older adults experiencing less negative emotion than younger adults. This result corroborates our process
account. Moreover, in Study 3, we found no significant differences due to age in participants’ recall of events.
This result casts doubt on the notion that cognitive decline is responsible for the age-related differences our
research has demonstrated. Among possible alternative explanations for the influence of aging on decision
making, cognitive decline is the most salient one.
Notwithstanding the above, additional evidence that age-related differences in sequence preferences is
indeed due to differences in emotion regulation processes is a worthy goal for future research. For example,
future research might focus solely on one age group (e.g., young adults) and test for potential differences in
sequence preferences due to individual differences in the tendency to engage in emotion management
processes such as suppression or reappraisal. Too, future research might consider depleting the coping
resources of older adults to determine whether older adults’ sequence preferences will mirror those of young
adults.
Another limitation of the present research relates to the issue of whether a group of young adults who
range in age from 18 to 25 is the most appropriate control group to use for the group of older adults who
participated in our studies. These older adults ranged in age from 65 to 92. The aim of the present research
was to establish a basic difference in preferences for affective sequences between young and older adults.
Consequently, we chose participants at the ends of the age spectrum. However, this division (between young
and older age groups) may be overly wide, and the conclusions one can draw from this division may be not
nearly fine-grained enough. Nevertheless, it is not immediately clear as to what control group or groups
would be more ideal. To address this limitation, one approach would be to collect data from the full range of
ages, between 18 and 92. One would then be able to draw finer conclusions as to the influence of aging and
emotion regulation processes on responses to sequences of affective events. One would expect an older adult
of age 65 to differ in cognitive functioning compared to an older adult of age 92. However, these two adults
might not differ significantly in emotional regulation ability. By including participants of all adult ages,
presumably one would be able to identify starting and stopping points for the age effects revealed in the
present research. These starting and stopping points might correspond to moments of developmental change.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Genevieve Hochwarter and Cory Sesko for their help in data collection. The authors also
thank Thomas Kramer and Kristin Diehl for their helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L., Drolet, A., & Griffin, D. (2008). Recalling mixed emotions: How did I feel again? Recalling mixed emotions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 268–278.
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Ariely, D. (1998). Combining experiences over time: The effects of duration, intensity changes and on-line measurements
on retrospective pain evaluations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 19–45.
Blanchard-Fields, F. (1986). Reasoning on social dilemmas varying in emotional saliency: An adult developmental
perspective. Psychology and Aging, 1, 325–333.
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory.
Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338.
Carstensen, L. L., & Charles, S. T. (1998). Emotion in the second half of life. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 7, 144–149.
Carstensen, L. L., & Lang, F. (1997). Measurement of time orientation in a diverse population. Unpublished Data,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional
selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.
Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect
over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136–151.
Charles, S. T., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and emotional memory: The forgettable nature of negative
images for older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 310–324.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Ersner-Hershfield, H., Mikels, J. A., Sullivan, S. J., & Carstensen, L. L. (2008). Poignancy: Mixed emotional experience
in the face of meaningful endings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 158–167.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter:
Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992–1003.
Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Conflicting motives in evaluations of sequences. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 37, 221–235.
Frederickson, B. L., & Carstensen, C. L. (1990). Choosing social partners: How old age and anticipated endings make
people more selective. Psychology and Aging, 5, 335–347.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 44–55.
Fung, H. H., Carstensen, L. L., & Lutz, A. M. (1999). Influence of time on social preferences: Implications for life-span
development. Psychology and Aging, 14, 595–604.
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of
durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617–628.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience,
expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237.
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Skorpen, C. G., & Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging:
Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging, 12, 590–599.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G. H. Bower
(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 193–225). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Hong, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2007). When does the coexistence of pleasure and pain not bother us? Construal level and
persuasiveness of mixed emotions appeals. Northwestern Kellogg Working Paper.
Isaacowitz, D. M., Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2000). Emotion and cognition. In F. Craik, & T. Salthouse (Eds.),
Handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 593–631). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1998). Cognitive-emotional integration in adulthood. In K. W. Schaie, & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual
review of gerontology and geriatrics: Focus on emotion and adult development (Vol. 17, pp. 206–237). New York:
Springer.
Labouvie-Vief, G., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (1982). Cognitive ageing and psychological growth. Ageing and Society, 2,
183–209.
Labouvie-Vief, G., & Schell, D. A. (1982). Learning, memory in later life. In B. Wolman, & G. Stricker (Eds.), Handbook
of developmental psychology, 316–355.
Labouvie-Vief, G., DeVoe, M., & Bulka, D. (1989). Speaking about feelings: Conceptions of emotion across the life span.
Lau-Gesk, L. (2005). Understanding consumer evaluations of mixed affective experiences. Journal of Consumer
Research, 32, 23–28.
Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., Rajagopal, D., & Dean, J. (1992). Dimensions of affective experience in three age groups.
Linville, P., & Fischer, G. (1991). Preferences for separating or combining events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 5–23.
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review, 100, 91–108.
Loewenstein, G., & Sicherman, N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles? Journal of Labor Economics, 9,
67–84.
Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (1999). Emotional tradeoff difficulty and choice. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36, 143–159.
Mather, M. (2004). Aging and emotional memory. In D. Reisberg, & P. Hertel (Eds.), Memory and emotion (pp. 272–307).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and attentional biases for emotional faces. Psychological Science, 14,
409–415.
Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective
on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1333–1349.
Novak, D., & Mather, M. (2007). Aging and variety seeking. Psychology and Aging, 22, 728–737.
Poon, L. (1985). Differences in human memory with aging: Nature, causes, and clinical implications. In J. E. Birren, &
K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 427–462). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative
bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431–449.
Ray, R. D., Wilhem, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2008). All in the mind’s eye? Anger rumination and reappraisal. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 133–145.
Robinson, M. D. & Clore G. L. (2002). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: Evidence for two
judgment Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 198–215.
Rodin, J., & Salovey, P. (1989). Health psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 533–579.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.),
Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433–465). New York: Guilford.
Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing
Research, 27, 150–162.
Taylor, S., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
Thomas, D. L., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 291–297.
Williams, P., & Aaker, J. L. (2002). Can mixed emotions peacefully co-exist? Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 636–649.
Williams, P., & Drolet, A. (2005). Age-related differences in responses to emotional advertisements. Journal of Consumer
Research, 32, 343–354.
Wilson, T. D., Meyers, J., & Gilbert, D. T. (2001). Lessons from the past: Do people learn from experience that emotional
reactions are short-lived? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1648–1661.
Wilson, T. D., Meyers, J., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). How happy was I, anyway? A retrospective impact bias. Social
Cognition, 21, 421–446.
Yoon, C. (1997). Age differences in consumers’ processing strategies: An investigation of moderating influences. Journal
of Consumer Research, 24, 329–342.
Authors’ biographies:
Aimee Drolet is The Betsy Wood Knapp Term Chair Professor of Innovation and Creativity at the UCLA Anderson
School of Management. She studies consumer decision-making, particularly the decision processes underlying con-
sumers’ choices.
Loraine Lau-Gesk is an assistant professor of marketing at the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of
California, Irvine. Her research interests fall into two areas: (1) the influence of emotions in consumer decision making,
and (2) the role of culture and self in consumer persuasion and judgment.
Carol Scott is a professor of marketing at The UCLA Anderson School of Management. Her research focuses on
understanding how and what consumers learn from their own consumption behavior and outside information sources.
Authors’ addresses:
Aimee Drolet and Carol Scott, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Loraine Lau-Gesk, University of California, Irvine, USA.
DOI: 10.1002/bdm

The Influence of Aging On Preferences For Sequences of Mixed Affective Events PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Aging On Preferences For Sequences of Mixed Affective Events PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

J. Behav. Dec. Making, 24: 293–314 (2011)

The Inﬂuence of Aging on Preferences for

key words aging; affective forecasting; emotion regulation; retrospective judgment;

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Aging and emotion focus

Aging and increased emotion regulation

Results and discussion

The neutral response scenario read:

And the negative response scenario read:

Overall retrospective evaluations

Table 3. Mean overall retrospective evaluations by order by age group in Study 2

The importance of timing

Aging and the inﬂuence of timing

The neutral response scenario read:

The negative response scenario read:

Results and discussion

Overall retrospective evaluations

Table 4. Mean overall retrospective evaluations by order by age group in Study 3

Table 5. Mean negative emotion responses by order by age group in Study 3

Table 6. Mean positive emotion responses by order by age group in Study 3

Table 7. Mean arousal emotion responses by order by age group in Study 3

Implications, limitations, and future research

You might also like