Age-related changes in cognitive abilities are well-documented, and a very important indicator of health, functioning, and decline in later life. However, less is known about the course of cognitive functioning before and after retirement and specifically whether job characteristics during one's time of employment (i.e., higher vs. lower levels of mental work demands) moderate how cognition changes both before and after the transition to retirement. We used data from n = 4,182 (50% women) individuals in the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative panel study in the United States, across an 18 year time span (1992–2010). Data were linked to the O'NET occupation codes to gather information about mental job demands to examine whether job characteristics during one's time of employment moderates level and rate of change in cognitive functioning (episodic memory and mental status) both before and after retirement. Results indicated that working in an occupation characterized by higher levels of mental demands was associated with higher levels of cognitive functioning before retirement, and a slower rate of cognitive decline after retirement. We controlled for a number of important covariates, including socioeconomic (education and income), demographic, and health variables. Our discussion focuses on pathways through which job characteristics may be associated with the course of cognitive functioning in relation to the important transition of retirement. Implications for job design as well as retirement are offered.

We attempted to replicate findings that “most people are resilient” following three events: spousal loss, divorce, and unemployment. We applied growth mixture models to the same longitudinal data set that has previously been used to assert that resilience is ubiquitous. When using identical model specifications as in prior studies, we found that resilient trajectories were most common, but the number of trajectories identified was different. When we relaxed the assumptions that (a) all classes have similar variability in levels of post-adversity adjustment and (b) there is no variability in changes within classes (as in prior studies), we found that a resilience class was least common. Methodologically, our results demonstrate how findings on trajectories of change following major life stressors vary substantially depending on statistical model specifications. Conceptually, they underscore the errors inherent in any categorical statements about “rates of resilience” among individuals confronted with major life stressors. Pragmatically, they underscore the dangers in recommending against prophylactic interventions -- based on one method of analyzing longitudinal data -- for individuals who have experienced major life stressors.

The literature on resilience and posttraumatic growth has been instrumental in highlighting the human capacity to overcome adversity by illuminating that there are different pathways individuals may follow. Although the theme of strength from adversity is attractive and central to many disciplines and certain cultural narratives, this claim lacks robust empirical evidence. Specific issues include methodological approaches of using growth-mixture modeling in resilience research and retrospective assessments of growth. Conceptually, limitations exist in the examination of which outcomes are most appropriate for studying resilience and growth. We discuss new research intended to overcome these limitations, with a focus on prospective longitudinal designs and the value of integrating these disciplines for furthering our understanding of the human capacity to overcome adversity.

No abstract

Development is a cumulative, lifelong process, but strikingly little is known about development in midlife. As a consequence, many misconceptions exist about the nature of midlife and the developmental milestones and challenges faced by middle-aged adults. We first review dominant views and empirical research that has debunked false narratives. Next, we discuss major opportunities and challenges of midlife. This includes the unique constellation of roles and life transitions that are distinct from earlier and later life phases as well as shifting trends in mental and physical health and in family composition. We additionally highlight the importance of (historical shifts in) intergenerational dynamics of middle-aged adults with their aging parents, adult children, and grandchildren; financial vulnerabilities that emerge and often accrue from economic failures and labor market volatility; the shrinking social and health care safety net; and the rising costs of raising children. In doing so, we discuss issues of diversity and note similarities and differences in midlife experiences across race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. We consider midlife as a pivotal period that includes a focus on balancing gains and losses, linking earlier and later life periods, and bridging generations. Finally, we propose possibilities for promoting reversibility and resilience with interventions and policy changes. The suggested agenda for future research promises to reconceptualize midlife as a key period of life, with a concerted effort to focus on the diversity of midlife experiences in order to meet the unprecedented challenges and opportunities in the 2020s and beyond.