About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Aging Research
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 949837, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/949837
Research Article

Investment Trait, Activity Engagement, and Age: Independent Effects on Cognitive Ability

Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, EH8 9JZ Edinburgh, UK

Received 27 February 2012; Revised 2 April 2012; Accepted 8 May 2012

Academic Editor: Allison A. M. Bielak

Copyright © 2012 Sophie von Stumm. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. T. A. Salthouse, Theoretical Perspectives on Cognitive Aging, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, Ind, USA, 1991.
  2. A. A. M. Bielak, “How can we not “lose it” if we still don't understand how to “use it”? unanswered questions about the influence of activity participation on cognitive performance in older age: a mini-review,” Gerontology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 507–519, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. M. Parisi, E. A. Stine-Morrow, S. R. Noh, and D. G. Morrow, “Predispositional engagement, activity engagement, and cognition among older adults.,” Aging, Cognition & Neuropsycholog, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 485–504, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. R. B. Cattell, “The measurement of adult intelligence,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 153–193, 1943. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. P. L. Ackerman, “A theory of adult intellectual development: process, personality, interests, and knowledge,” Intelligence, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 227–257, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. E. A. L. Stine-Morrow, “The dumbledore hypothesis of cognitive aging,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 295–299, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. J. Gow, J. Corley, J. M. Starr, and I. J. Deary, “Reverse causation in activity-cognitive ability associations: the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 37, pp. 71–89, 2011.
  8. D. F. Hultsch, C. Hertzog, B. J. Small, and R. A. Dixon, “Use it or lose it: Engaged lifestyle as a buffer of cognitive decline in aging?” Psychology and Aging, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 245–263, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. von Stumm and I. J. Deary, “Typical intellectual engagement and cognition in the ninth decade of life: the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 98, pp. 87–91, 2011.
  10. M. J. Aartsen, C. H. M. Smits, T. Van Tilburg, K. C. P. M. Knipscheer, and D. J. H. Deeg, “Activity in older adults: cause or consequence of cognitive functioning? A longitudinal study on everyday activities and cognitive performance in older adults,” Journals of Gerontology B, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. P153–P162, 2002. View at Scopus
  11. P. Ghisletta, J. F. Bickel, and M. Lövdön, “Does activity engagement protect against cognitive decline in old age? Methodological and analytical considerations,” Journals of Gerontology B, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. P253–P261, 2006. View at Scopus
  12. A. J. Gow, M. C. Whiteman, A. Pattie, and I. J. Deary, “The personality-intelligence interface: Insights from an ageing cohort,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 751–761, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. S. von Stumm, P. L. Ackerman, and T. Chamorro-Premuzic, “Re-visiting intelligence-personality associations: Vindicating intellectual investment,” in Handbook of Individual Differences, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, and A. Furnham, Eds., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, 2011.
  14. J. A. Schinka, A. McBride, R. D. Vanderploeg, K. Tennyson, A. R. Borenstein, and J. A. Mortimer, “Florida cognitive activities scale: initial development and validation,” Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 108–116, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. Y. E. Geda, R. O. Roberts, D. S. Knopman et al., “Physical exercise, aging, and mild cognitive impairment a population-based study,” Archives of Neurology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 80–86, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. M. J. Valenzuela and P. Sachdev, “Assessment of complex mental activity across the lifespan: Development of the Lifetime of Experiences Questionnaire (LEQ),” Psychological Medicine, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1015–1025, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. T. Cacioppo and R. E. Petty, “The need for cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 116–131, 1982. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. P. T. Costa and R. R. McCrae, Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, Fla, USA, 1992.
  19. A. Soubelet and T. A. Salthouse, “The role of activity engagement in the relations between Openness/Intellect and cognition,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 896–901, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. J. T. Cacioppo, R. E. Petty, J. Feinstein, and W. B. G. Jarvis, “Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 119, pp. 197–253, 1996.
  21. P. Mussel, “Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: lacking evidence of discriminant validity,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 506–510, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. S. E. Woo, P. D. Harms, and N. R. Kuncel, “Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1635–1639, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. D. C. Funder, “Personality,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 197–221, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173–1182, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. K. J. Preacher and A. F. Hayes, “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 879–891, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. Richards, R. Hardy, and M. E. J. Wadsworth, “Does active leisure protect cognition? Evidence from a national birth cohort,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 785–792, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. C. Raven, Progressive Matrices: A Perceptual Test of Intelligence, H. K. Lewis, London, UK, 1968.
  28. R. B. Ekstrom, J. W. French, and H. H. Harman, Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, UK, 1976.
  29. M. Fleischhauer, S. Enge, B. Brocke, J. Ullrich, A. Strobel, and A. Strobel, “Same or different? Clarifying the relationship of need for cognition to personality and intelligence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 82–96, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. L. R. James, “Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning,” Organizational Research Methods, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 131–163, 1998. View at Scopus