Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Mar 28.
Published in final edited form as: J Aging Health. 2023 Oct 6;36(7-8):471–483. doi: 10.1177/08982643231199806

The Paradox in Positive and Negative Aspects of Emotional Functioning Among Older Adults with Early Stages of Cognitive Impairment

Manrui Zhang 1, Emily Ho 1, Cindy J Nowinski 1,2, Rina S Fox 1,3, Ezgi Ayturk 4, Tatiana Karpouzian-Rogers 5, Miriam Novack 1, Hiroko H Dodge 6, Sandra Weintraub 5, Richard Gershon 1
PMCID: PMC11951135  NIHMSID: NIHMS2063788  PMID: 37800686

Abstract

Introduction:

Emotional functioning in older adults is influenced by normal aging and cognitive impairment, likely heterogeneous across positive versus negative aspects of emotional functioning. Little is known about positive emotional experiences at the early stages of cognitive impairment.

Methods:

We assessed different aspects of emotional functioning among 448 participants aged 65+ (Normal Control (NC) = 276, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) = 103, and mild dementia of the Alzheimer type (mild DAT) = 69) and tested moderators.

Results:

Compared to NC, older adults with MCI and mild DAT have maintained many positive aspects of emotional functioning, despite higher levels of negative affect, sadness, and loneliness. Among the oldest-old, the mild DAT group experienced higher fear and lower self-efficacy.

Discussion:

Older adults at early stages of cognitive impairment can experience positive aspects of emotional functioning, such as positive affect, purpose, and life satisfaction, all of which are important buildable psychological resources for coping.

Keywords: cognitive aging, cognitive impairment, emotional functioning, negative emotions, positive emotions

Introduction

Emotional functioning is influenced by both normal aging and changes in the brain due to dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases (Carbone et al., 2022; Depp et al., 2010; Fan et al., 2023). With the normal aging process, older adults generally can maintain similar, if not higher, affective well-being and emotional stability because they engage more in positivity-seeking emotional regulation strategies (Isaacowitz, 2022; Scheibe & Carstensen, 2010). However, older age is also associated with a higher risk of developing dementia, which disturbs emotional processing and may increase the prevalence of negative emotional symptoms such as depression, anxiety, agitation, and aggression (Invernizzi et al., 2022; Cerejeira et al., 2012; Ma, 2020; Van der Mussele et al., 2015). Thus, emotional functioning in older adults is a result of complex interactions of different emotion processing and regulation mechanisms influenced by the severity of cognitive impairment, likely heterogeneous across positive versus negative aspects of emotional functioning.

Growing evidence in recent years called for a specific research focus on emotional functioning during the early stages of cognitive impairment because (1) deficits in emotional processing are among the earliest signs of cognitive impairment (García-Martín et al., 2022; Halpin et al., 2017; Lanctôt et al., 2017) and (2) there is a high prevalence (>50%) of anosognosia, or lack of awareness of one’s own cognitive deficit and emotional experiences, at the more advanced stages of cognitive impairment (Jacus et al., 2023; Starkstein, 2014). Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) represents a stage of early cognitive impairment that may be considered the intermediate phase between normal aging and dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) (Knopman & Petersen, 2014): MCI is typically characterized by low performance in one or more cognitive domains that do not substantially interfere with daily functioning; in some cases, such decline in cognitive function may plateau or become reversible (Knopman & Petersen, 2014; McGirr et al., 2022). Mild DAT, in comparison, represents more severe cognitive impairment in more than one cognitive domain that interferes with independence in daily life and has a worse prognosis (Knopman & Petersen, 2014).

Characterizing emotional functioning across cognitively healthy individuals and those with MCI or mild DAT is critical because emotional symptoms are early indicators of the overall health, functional independence, and caregiving burden for older adults with cognitive impairment and their families (Ayhan et al., 2023; Ballard et al., 2009; Isik et al., 2019; Orgeta et al., 2022; Palmer et al., 2010). This knowledge can help researchers better understand: (1) in which stage of cognitive impairment do older adults start to experience worsening emotional functioning; and (2) which aspects of emotional functioning are likely to be preserved when cognitive impairment progresses from subtle in the MCI stage to more substantial in the mild DAT stage. A better understanding of these issues has important implications for supporting early care planning and interventions among older adults with cognitive impairment: early initiation of intervention programs, such as emotional regulation and cognitive training, may be appropriate and effective for providing older adults and their families strategies to cope with the worsening cognitive and emotional functioning over time (Irazoki et al., 2020; Jean et al., 2010; Larouche et al., 2015).

Although the health significance of positive aspects of emotional functioning in later life has been widely documented (Meier et al., 2021; Ong et al., 2011; Pressman et al., 2019), most studies of older adults with MCI or mild DAT primarily emphasized negative aspects of emotional functioning, such as depression and loneliness (Holwerda et al., 2014; Ma, 2020; Van der Mussele et al., 2015). While a growing number of studies in recent years have examined positive emotional experiences among individuals with DAT, including constructs related to psychological well-being and self-efficacy, these studies usually focused on a single aspect of positive experience. This makes it challenging to synthesize information or make meaningful comparisons across studies due to the large variations in study methods (Bell et al., 2022; Dos Santos et al., 2018). Although quality of life as a construct relevant to successful aging has been examined among individuals living with more advanced stages of dementia, this construct alone may not fully reflect all aspects of emotional well-being that are important and meaningful to individuals with cognitive impairment (Martyr et al., 2018). For instance, positive affect, meaning and purpose, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy are aspects of emotional functioning integral to developing resilience in the context of chronic stress, including the stress of living with cognitive impairment (Arenaza-Urquijo & Vemuri, 2020; Harris, 2008). A more systematic approach to examining these positive emotional experiences among older adults with MCI or mild DAT is essential for identifying psychological resources to cope with challenges faced by older adults with cognitive impairment (Martyr et al., 2018).

It is important to note that certain subgroups of older adults may be more vulnerable to compromised emotional functioning based on their sociodemographic characteristics. For instance, the oldest-old (those aged 80 and above) with MCI or mild DAT may differ from their younger counterparts in their emotional functioning as evidence suggests that age-related protective effect in emotional processing and regulation generally start to deteriorate after reaching the age of 80 (Charles & Carstensen, 2010; Goveas et al., 2016; Scheibe & Carstensen, 2010). Hence, age group (<80 and 80+) likely moderates the relationship between cognitive status and emotional functioning. Besides age, gender may also be an important effect moderator specific to aggression as prior literature documented that gender differences in physical aggression are salient among individuals across different developmental stages (Kim et al., 2022; Zuidema et al., 2009). A better understanding of these moderators would contribute to better identification of subgroups of older adults at a higher risk of suffering from worsened emotional functioning with the onset of cognitive impairment. However, many practical challenges, e.g., the difficulty of recruiting the oldest-old without cognitive impairment, prevented a great number of prior studies from testing these moderators due to the limitations in sample representativeness.

To fill these gaps, this current study aimed to investigate differences in emotional functioning among cognitively normal (NC) older adults, older adults with MCI, and older adults with mild DAT. Unique also to our study is the addition of a sample of cognitively intact adults aged over 80. Our main hypothesis is that older adults at early stages of cognitive impairment experience higher negative emotions, though not necessarily compromised psychological well-being compared to cognitively healthy older adults. We additionally hypothesize that the differences in negative aspects of emotional functioning may appear as early as the MCI stage and that age group (age<80, 80+) moderates the relationship between cognitive status and emotional experiences. To ensure breadth of assessment, we evaluated many dimensions of emotional functioning using the NIH Toolbox Emotion Battery (NIHTB-EB), a comprehensive set of computerized measures of emotional functioning validated for use in a representative sample of the US general population (Salsman et al., 2013).

Methods

Participants

Data were drawn from English-speaking participants who took part in the Advancing Reliable Measurement in Alzheimer’s Disease and Cognitive Aging (ARMADA) study (S. Weintraub et al., 2021). The ARMADA study is an ongoing, multi-center, longitudinal study of older adults aged 65 and above and collects multidimensional aspects of health, including cognitive function and well-being data among older adults with and without cognitive impairment with biomarkers and other neurological and clinical data (Weintraub et al., 2021). Participants were recruited from the existing cohorts of nine participating institutions (Alzheimer’s Disease Center or other affiliated longitudinal studies of aging and dementia). Participants were eligible to be included in the ARMADA cohort if they (1) were participants of a source study at one of the nine recruiting institutions; and (2) had a research diagnosis of mild DAT (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale [CDR] Global Score = 1) or MCI (amnestic single or multidomain: Global CDR = .5) (Karpouzian-Rogers et al., 2023; Weintraub et al., 2022). The research diagnosis of cognitive impairment was multi-tiered, consisting of the assignment to a clinical profile based on information obtained from participants, study partner, neuropsychological testing and examination, and additional neuroimaging or laboratory data (Weintraub et al., 2022). Similarly, cognitively normal individuals were recruited and enrolled if they were 65 or older, with no significant complaints of cognitive impairment, and with normal cognition judged by clinical interview and mental status examination. Participants were excluded from the study if they had disorders with similar symptoms as dementia, a history of any major chronic psychiatric disorder, central nervous system disease, substance abuse, serious medical illness, chronic use of neuroleptic or hypnotic medications, or if they were unable to provide consent. Approval was obtained from the institutional review board at the coordinating site (STU00205290) and each of the nine recruitment sites. Informed consent was obtained from participants before the start of the study. Detailed descriptions of the study design, recruitment procedures and analysis plans can be found in a prior publication (S. Weintraub et al., 2021).

Measures

Emotional functioning was assessed using the NIH Toolbox Emotion Battery (NIHTB-EB), which measures four primary domains (Salsman et al., 2013): Negative Affect, Social Relationships, Psychological Well-Being, and Stress and Self-Efficacy. The Negative Affect domain reflects overall negative emotions, including measures of Anger-Affect, Anger-Hostility, Anger-Physical Aggression, Fear-Affect, Fear-Somatic Arousal, and Sadness. The Social Relationships domain is comprised of measures assessing Loneliness, Friendship, Perceived Rejection, Perceived Hostility, Emotional Support, and Instrumental Support, all of which reflect an individual’s perception of social relationship and social support. The Psychological Well-Being domain represents the overall feeling of contentedness with respect to self and life, including measures of Positive Affect, Life Satisfaction, and Meaning and Purpose. Finally, the Stress and Self-Efficacy domain consists of measures of Perceived Stress and Self-Efficacy, reflecting an individual’s psychological distress and adaptive capacity.

The NIHTB-EB is self-administered and takes approximately 20–30 minutes to complete (Salsman et al., 2013). Survey data were collected at in-person visits, and a trained test administrator was available to the participant throughout the session to answer questions. All measures were administered as part of the standard emotion battery in the NIH Toolbox App. Seven scales (i.e., Anger-Affect, Fear-Affect, Sadness, Positive Affect, Life Satisfaction, Meaning and Purpose, and Self-Efficacy) were administered as computerized adaptive tests (CATs). CATs adjust difficulty to a participant’s ability and improve test efficacy by reducing the number of items needed to achieve a certain level of reliability (Gershon et al., 2013). In the NIHTB-EB, those tests end once an individual reaches the reliability (Cronbach α) of .90, which typically requires four to six items (Pilkonis et al., 2013; Salsman et al., 2014). The rest were administered as fixed length forms, including Anger Hostility (5 items), Anger-Physical Aggression (5 items), Fear-Somatic (6 items), Loneliness (5 items), Friendship (8 items), Perceived Rejection (8 items), Perceived Hostility (8 items), Emotional Support (8 items), Instrumental Support (8 items), and Perceived Stress (10 items). See Supplemental Table S1 for details.

NIHTB-EB has demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach αs ranging from .90 to .98 across scales) and acceptable convergent validity (correlation coefficients ranging from .60 to .92 across scales) among adult participants in prior literature (Kupst et al., 2015; Pilkonis et al., 2013; Salsman et al., 2013, 2014). Its validity and appropriateness for use have been documented among individuals with cognitive impairment, including individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment, dementia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, and traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and stroke (Carlozzi et al., 2017; Chaparro et al., 2016; Fox et al., 2022; Lopez et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2022). Moreover, test administrators were trained to make sure that participants accurately understood and were able to respond to NIHTB-EB instruments during the in-person interviews.

For each item, participants indicate the extent to which a given statement was true or the frequency of a given event. For example, participants rated the extent to which the statement “I can solve most problems if I try hard enough” (Self-Efficacy) was true, or the frequency of feeling “unable to control the important things in your life?” (Perceived Stress). As our analysis adjusts for age and other demographic covariates, we used the demographically unadjusted standard T-scores automatically generated by the NIH Toolbox App. Unadjusted standard T-scores (normative mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10, where higher scores indicate a higher degree of the construct being assessed) reflect one’s overall level of functioning (not in the context of age, gender, education level, or other demographic factors). For instance, a T-score of 60 in Sadness suggests a higher-than-average level of Sadness, whereas a T-score of 40 in Positive Affect suggests a lower-than-average level of Positive Affect.

We also evaluated summary scores for Negative Affect, Psychological Well-being, and Social Relationships. Briefly, the summary scores are weighted average scores of individual scales within a latent factor based on the psychometrically validated factor structure of the NIHTB-EB, which are then normalized to a T-score distribution (Babakhanyan et al., 2018). The Negative Affect summary score is derived from the scores on individual measures of Anger-Affect, Anger-Hostility, Fear-Affect, Sadness, and Perceived Stress; the Social Relationships summary score is based on individual scales of Loneliness, Friendship, Perceived Rejection, Emotional Support, and Instrumental Support; the Psychological Well-Being summary score is based on individual scales of Positive Affect, Life Satisfaction, and Meaning and Purpose (Babakhanyan et al., 2018). See Supplemental Table S1 for additional summary score details.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine the differences in sample characteristics across those characterized as NC, MCI, and mild DAT. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to examine the differences in unadjusted means of emotional functioning measures by clinical status (three levels: NC, MCI, and mild DAT). General linear models were used to estimate the adjusted mean for each emotional health measure, controlling for age group (two levels: <80 and 80+), gender, marital status (Married vs. Divorced/Never Married/Separated/Other), and education (<College, College graduate and Postgraduate). For models with significant covariates, we additionally tested whether there was an interaction between the significant covariate and clinical status. If a significant interaction effect between a covariate and clinical status on an emotional health score was found, the adjusted means were estimated for each level of the covariate. Partial effect size estimates (partial eta squared; η2) were computed to measure the effect size of the clinical status in models. Post-hoc Tukey pairwise comparisons were performed to further examine the differences in adjusted means in each pair of the three clinical groups.

An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power3 (Faul et al., 2007) to test the difference across the three independent group means using one-way ANOVA, a small to medium effect size (η2 = .05), and an alpha of .05. Result showed that at least 62 participants per group were needed to achieve a power of .80 and our sample sizes have exceeded this requirement across all three groups.

Results

Sample Characteristics

A total of 448 English-speaking participants (nNC = 276, nMCI = 103, nmild DAT = 69) from the baseline data of the ARMADA study were included in the analyses. The mean age of the entire sample was 78.01 years (SD = 8.25 years), with 42.79% of participants aged 80 and older. Approximately half of the sample (53.22%) was female, 40.58% was married, and 76.05% had a college degree or higher. Compared to the MCI and the mild DAT group, a greater proportion of older adults in the NC group were aged 80 or older (NC = 48.81%, MCI = 34.62%, mild DAT = 30.99%, χ2(2) = 11.11, p < .01), females (NC = 60.51%, MCI = 41.35%, mild DAT = 42.25%, χ2(2) = 15.21, p < .001), and with college degree or higher (NC = 80.80%, MCI = 69.23%, mild DAT = 67.61%, χ2(4) = 14.00, p < .01). There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of race and ethnicity across the three groups (all ps > .05). See Table 1 for more details.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

NC MCI Mild DAT χ2 df p-value
N = 276 N = 103 N = 69
Age category N (%)
<80 141 (51.09) 68 (65.38) 49 (69.01)
 ≥80 135 (48.91) 36 (34.62) 22 (30.99) 11.11 2 <.01
Gender N (%)
 Male 109 (39.49) 61 (58.65) 41 (57.75)
 Female 167 (60.51) 43 (41.35) 30 (42.25) 15.21 2 <.001
Race N (%)
 White 235 (85.14) 88 (84.62) 63 (88.73)
 African American 35 (12.68) 15 (14.42) 4 (5.63)
 Other 6 (2.17) 1 (.96) 4 (5.63) 7.10 4 .13
Ethnicity N (%)
 Hispanic 6 (2.17) 4 (3.85) 3 (4.23)
 Non-Hispanic 270 (97.83) 100 (96.15) 68 (95.77) 1.29 2 .52
Education N (%)
< College 53 (19.20) 32 (30.77) 23 (32.39)
 College graduate 80 (28.99) 29 (27.88) 26 (36.62)
 Postgraduate 143 (51.81) 43 (41.35) 22 (30.99) 14.00 4 <.01
Marital status N (%)
 Married 205 (74.28) 44 (42.31) 19 (26.76)
 Not married 71 (25.72) 60 (57.69) 52 (73.24) 69.30 2 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = Cognitively normal. MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment. Mild DAT = Dementia of the Alzheimer type. Not Married = Divorced/Never Married/ Separated/Other.

Unadjusted Differences in Emotional Functioning By Clinical Status

As shown in Table 2, participants reported different levels of overall Negative Affect (F (2,2) = 7.78, p < .001, η2 = .050) and Psychological Well-Being (F (2,2) = 3.82, p = .023, η2 = .025). There were no statistically significant differences in the summary scores of Social Relationships across the three groups (F (2,2) = .05, p = .95, η2 < .001). The effect sizes of group differences in Negative Affect and Psychological Well-Being were considered small to medium (Cohen, 1992).

Table 2.

Unadjusted Means in Different Aspects of Emotion Functioning.

NC
Mean (SD)		 MCI
Mean (SD)		 Mild DAT
Mean (SD)		 p-value η2
Summary Scores
 Negative Affect 43.92 (8.44) 48.34 (9.10) 47.66 (10.28) <.001 .050
 Social Relationships 50.13 (8.52) 49.79 (9.03) 50.22 (8.76) .951 <.001
 Psychological Well-being 52.19 (8.99) 49.21 (8.11) 49.63 (8.70) .023 .025
Negative Affect
 Anger-Affect 45.90 (8.56) 46.96 (9.58) 48.45 (10.67) .101 .010
 Anger-Hostility 41.94 (7.46) 44.58 (8.59) 43.04 (8.44) .015 .019
 Anger-Physical Aggression 44.07 (4.67) 45.17 (6.67) 47.01 (8.73) .001 .031
 Fear-Affect 48.08 (8.87) 50.49 (9.72) 50.96 (10.21) .016 .019
 Fear-Somatic Arousal 47.47 (7.72) 47.37 (9.29) 47.57 (10.48) .988 <.001
 Sadness 46.18 (9.94) 48.70 (9.30) 49.99 (10.50) <.001 .023
Social Relationships
 Loneliness 49.45 (9.21) 49.61 (9.35) 51.68 (10.12) .205 .007
 Friendship 50.33 (9.21) 50.46 (8.28) 49.19 (8.18) .593 .002
 Perceived Rejection 47.41 (8.38) 48.51 (9.19) 48.26 (9.82) .495 .003
 Perceived Hostility 40.01 (7.88) 49.25 (8.25) 48.55 (8.61) .403 .004
 Emotion Support 46.78 (8.68) 46.84 (8.21) 46.92 (7.70) .992 <.001
 Instrumental Support 50.04 (10.21) 51.40 (9.26) 53.20 (7.55) .039 .014
Psychological Well-being
 Positive Affect 48.91 (7.67) 48.12 (7.88) 47.63 (7.55) .384 .004
 Life Satisfaction 56.40 (9.21) 53.76 (9.30) 54.23 (10.34) .026 .016
 Meaning and Purpose 50.35 (9.36) 49.04 (8.95) 48.45 (8.48) .197 .007
Stress and Self-efficacy
 Perceived Stress 44.91 (8.36) 46.28 (9.59) 47.33 (10.44) .093 .011
 Self-Efficacy 51.77 (8.65) 50.92 (8.59) 48.41 (9.45) .018 .018
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = Cognitively normal. MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment. Mild DAT = Mild Dementia of the Alzheimer type. Mean and SD were calculated based on unadjusted-scores.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.

Within the Negative Affect domain, the main effect of clinical status was statistically significant on measures of Anger-Hostility (F (2, 445) = 4.27, p = .015, η2 = .019), Anger-Physical Aggression (F (2, 445) = 7.04, p = .001, η2 = .031), Fear-Affect (F (2,445) = 4.21, p = .016, η2 = .019), and Sadness (F (2,445) = 5.33, p < .001, η2 = .023). Within the Social Relationships domain, Instrumental Support was the only measure that showed a statistically significant difference across the three groups (F (2,446) = 3.26, p = .039, η2 = .014). In the Psychological Well-Being domain, there was a significant group difference in Life Satisfaction (F (2,446) = 3.69, p = .03, η2 = .02). A significant main effect of clinical status was also found in Self-Efficacy scores (F (2,446) = 4.07, p = .018, η2 = .018). All of these effect sizes were considered small (Cohen, 1992).

Adjusted Differences in Emotional Functioning by Clinical Status

The main effect of clinical status on the adjusted means of different aspects of emotional functioning across the NC, MCI, and mild DAT groups are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Adjusted Means in Different Aspects of Emotional Functioning — Main Effects.

NC
Adjusted Mean (SE)		 MCI
Adjusted Mean (SE)		 Mild DAT
Adjusted Mean (SE)		 p-value Partial
η2
Summary scores
 Negative Affect 44.00 (.73) 48.18 (1.06) 47.65 (1.22) .003 .039
 Social Relationships 50.50 (.70) 49.59 (1.02) 49.44 (1.17) .675 .003
 Psychological Well-Being 52.09 (.71) 49.40 (1.03) 49.07 (1.18) .073 .018
Negative Affect
 Anger-Affect 46.08 (.58) 46.66 (.92) 48.13 (1.15) .310 .005
 Anger-Hostility 42.09 (.50) 44.34 (.90) 42.83 (.99) .064 .012
 Fear-Somatic Arousal 47.53 (.54) 47.24 (.87) 47.53 (1.09) .958 <.001
 Sadness 45.93 (.62) 49.00 (.99) 50.53 (1.25) .002 .028
Social Relationships
 Loneliness 48.94 (.58) 50.16 (.93) 52.89 (1.17) .015 .019
 Friendship 50.28 (.55) 50.65 (.88) 49.08 (1.11) .507 .003
 Perceived Rejection 47.49 (.56) 48.34 (.89) 48.21 (1.12) .698 .002
 Perceived Hostility 48.58 (.50) 48.46 (.80) 47.47 (1.01) .627 .002
 Emotional Support 47.01 (.53) 46.62 (.85) 46.33 (1.05) .840 <.001
 Instrumental Support 50.82 (.59) 50.46 (.93) 51.55 (1.16) .751 .001
Psychological Well-Being
 Positive Affect 48.69 (.48) 48.46 (.77) 47.97 (.96) .813 <.001
 Life Satisfaction 56.35 (.59) 53.92 (.94) 54.22 (1.16) .070 .012
 Meaning and Purpose 50.25 (.58) 49.23 (.92) 48.58 (1.14) .402 .004
Stress and Self-Efficacy
 Perceived Stress 44.83 (.57) 46.36 (.91) 47.51 (1.14) .099 .011
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = Cognitively normal. MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment. All models were adjusted for age, gender, education, marital status. The adjusted means of Fear-Affect, Anger-Physical Aggression, and Self-Efficacy are reported in Table 4 because they showed significant moderating effects.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.

After adjusting for age group, gender, education, and marital status, a significant main effect of clinical status was shown in the Negative Affect Summary Score across the groups of NC, MCI, and mild DAT (F (2, 289) = 5.89, p = .003, partial η2 = .039). Significant main effects of clinical status were also found in the adjusted means of Sadness (F (2, 439) = 6.26, p = .002, partial η2 = .028) and Loneliness (F (2, 440) = 4.25, p = .015, partial η2 = .019) (Figure 1(a)).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

(a) Differences in Emotional Functioning Across Clinical Status Groups—Main Effects, (b) Differences in Emotional Functioning Across Clinical Status Groups—Moderating Effects. Notes. NC = Cognitively normal. MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment. DAT = Dementia of the Alzheimer type.

As shown in Table 4, a significant interaction term of gender and clinical status was found in Anger-Physical Aggression (F (2, 437) = 3.68, p = .01), indicating that gender moderated the relationship between clinical status and Anger-Physical Aggression. As shown in Figure 1(b), the difference in the adjusted means of Anger-Physical Aggression across three groups was significant among males (F (2, 201) = 4.51, p = .012, partial η2 = .043), but not among females (F (2, 232) = .40, p = .671, partial η2 = .003). Similarly, in the models of Fear-Affect and Self-Efficacy, significant interaction terms between age group (two levels: <80, 80+) and clinical status was found (all ps < .05). Only among the oldest-old aged 80 and above, the three clinical groups significantly differed in the adjusted means of Fear-Affect (F (2, 184) = 4.76, p = .010, partial η2 = .049) and Self-Efficacy (F (2, 185) = 4.16, p = .017, partial η2 = .043).

Table 4.

Adjusted Means in Different Aspects of Emotional Functioning—Moderating Effects.

NC
Adjusted Mean (SE)		 MCI
Adjusted Mean (SE)		 Mild DAT
Adjusted Mean (SE)		 p-value Partial
η2
Fear-Affect moderated by age group
 Age <80 49.07 (.83) 52.39 (1.18) 50.26 (1.40) .088 .019
 Age 80+ 46.83 (.80) 46.87 (1.52) 53.69 (2.08) .010 .049
Self-Efficacy moderated by age group
 Age <80 52.21 (.75) 49.52 (1.05) 49.39 (1.26) .071 .021
 Age 80+ 51.25 (.81) 53.70 (1.55) 46.38 (2.11) .017 .043
Anger-Physical Aggression by gender
 Female 44.13 (.40) 43.53 (.79) 44.55 (1.00) .671 .003
 Male 44.39 (.67) 45.90 (.87) 48.33 (1.08) .012 .043
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = Cognitively normal. MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment. DAT = Dementia of the Alzheimer type. All models were adjusted for age, gender, education, marital status. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Pairwise Comparison of Adjusted Differences in Emotional Functioning

Results of the post-hoc Tukey pairwise comparisons are shown in Table 5. Compared to the NC group, the mild DAT and MCI groups had significantly higher levels of Negative Affect (mean difference: MCI vs. NC = 4.18, p < .01; mild DAT vs. NC = 3.65, p < .01) and Sadness (mean difference: MCI vs. NC = 3.08, p < .05; mild DAT vs. NC = 4.60, p < .01). Mild DAT group also had higher levels of Loneliness compared to the NC group (mean difference: mild DAT vs. NC = 3.95, p < .01).

Table 5.

Pairwise Comparisons Across NC, MCI, and mild DAT groups.

MCI Versus NC(Reference) Mild DAT Versus NC (Reference) MCI Versus Mild DAT (Reference)
Mean difference (SE) Mean difference (SE) Mean difference (SE)
Main Effects
 Negative Affect 4.18 (1.33)** 3.65 (1.48)* −.51 (1.57)
 Sadness 3.08 (1.21)* 4.60 (1.45)** 1.53 (1.54)
 Loneliness 1.22 (1.13) 3.95 (1.36)** 2.73 (1.44)
Moderating Effects
 Fear Affect (age 80+) .04 (1.75) 6.85 (2.30)** 6.82 (2.50)*
 Self-Efficacy (age 80+) 2.45 (1.78) −4.86 (2.32) −7.31 (2.54)*
 Anger-Physical Aggression (male) 1.52 (1.13) 3.94 (1.32)** 2.45 (1.36)
Open in a new tab

Note. NC = Cognitively normal. MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment. DAT = Dementia of the Alzheimer type. *p < .05,**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Among the oldest-old aged 80 and above, the mild DAT group had higher levels of Fear-Affect (mean difference: mild DAT vs. NC = 6.85, p < .01) compared to the NC group. The mild DAT group also presented higher Fear-Affect (mean difference: mild DAT vs. MCI = 6.82, p < .05) and lower Self-Efficacy (mean difference: mild DAT vs. MCI = −7.31, p < .05) than the MCI group. Among male participants, higher levels of Anger-Physical Aggression were observed in the mild DAT group compared to the NC group (mean difference: mild DAT vs. NC = 3.94, p < .01).

Discussion

This study characterized multidimensional aspects of emotional functioning across cognitively normal older adults and those with MCI or mild DAT. Higher levels of sadness, loneliness, and negative affect were observed as early as the MCI stage. Despite experiencing higher levels of negative emotions, older adults at early stages of cognitive impairment were still able to maintain many positive aspects of emotional functioning even with a diagnosis of mild DAT.

Our findings add to the small but growing body of literature evaluating psychological well-being among older adults with dementia. In contrast to a few studies in which lower life satisfaction and positive affect were observed among older adults at an advanced stage of dementia (Dos Santos et al., 2018; Zank & Leipold, 2001), our results suggest that in the early stages of cognitive impairment, older adults still have the ability to experience positive affect, meaning and purpose, and life satisfaction, despite elevated levels of negative emotional experience. This inconsistency may be explained by our primary focus on the early stages of cognitive impairment: prior research suggested that dementia status is only associated with lower life satisfaction through the mediation of impaired Activities of Daily Living (ADLs); existing literature has also documented that ADLs have generally yet to be seriously impacted in the transition from cognitively healthy to MCI or mild DAT, despite compromised functioning in some aspects of the instrumental activities in daily living (A Marshall et al., 2015; Gotanda et al., 2022; Peres et al., 2006).

Notably, our findings give nuances to current intervention strategies that promote successful aging among older adults with MCI or mild DAT. Researchers generally agreed that positive emotional experiences are buildable psychological resources that can help older adults better cope with negative emotions accompanied by living with cognitive impairment. However, positive psychology approaches are commonly believed to be preventative strategies that lower the risk of developing dementia among cognitively healthy older adults rather than interventions that can still be relevant and effective even after the onset of MCI (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Pressman & Cohen, 2005). For instance, purpose in life was found to be independently associated with a 19%–30% decreased risk of dementia (Bell et al., 2022; Sutin et al., 2018). Our study highlights that the onset of cognitive impairment may not necessarily hinder older adults from experiencing positive emotions. Older adults with MCI or mild DAT may still benefit from interventions that help older adults build positive psychological resources.

Previous literature shows that older adults with DAT have a higher prevalence and incidence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and agitation, all of which are important and common clinical presentations of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (van der Linde et al., 2012). While most of the prior studies targeted single aspects of negative affect, our study showed that the difference among the three clinical groups is larger in an overall negative affect, rather than at the level of individual measures. Nonetheless, there were about three to five points difference in the adjusted means of Negative Affect, Sadness, and Loneliness across groups. The magnitude of these differences was .3–.5 SD given that all scores follow a T-distribution with a mean of 50 and SD of 10. These findings can generally be interpreted as clinically meaningful because the literature suggests that .2 to .5 SD represent the minimal clinically important difference based on most distributional methods (Mouelhi et al., 2020).

Loneliness was the only instrument in the social relationships domain that showed significant group differences, primarily driven by the differences between the mild DAT and NC groups. While it is documented that older adults living with dementia are more likely to experience social withdrawal and have a higher prevalence of loneliness (Balouch et al., 2019; Victor et al., 2020), loneliness is also known to be a predictive factor associated with 40%–60% increased risk of developing dementia in population-based studies (Holwerda et al., 2014; Sutin et al., 2020). In contrast to loneliness, no significant differences were observed in friendship, emotional support, and instrumental support across older adults with and without early stages of cognitive impairment. This indicates that although older adults with early stages of cognitive impairment in this study seems to be able to maintain their regular social contacts and support in general, they feel lonelier than cognitively healthy older adults of similar age. A possible explanation may in part due to loneliness is an in-depth emotional experience based on affective and cognitive evaluation of satisfaction with social relationship, whereas friendship and social support reflect a more objective assessment of one’s social network and the support received from the network (Van Baarsen et al., 2001). Thus, the onset of mild DAT may negatively impact the perception and interpretation of social relationships, even though minor differences were found in the actual delivery of these relationships. Nonetheless, as loneliness is both a predictor and a health outcome of dementia, it is essential that older adults negatively affected by loneliness be identified at the early stages of cognitive impairment to allow for earlier intervention to break this reciprocal feedback circle (Dodge et al., 2014). Interventions, besides facilitating the operation and performance of social relationships, should also consider incorporating ways to help older adults shape meaningful interpretations of these social contacts and relationships.

Of note, gender and age group appear to be two important moderators when examining emotional functioning among older adults with and without cognitive impairment. We observed a higher level of anger-physical aggression in the mild DAT group than the NC group, but only among male participants. This gender difference in psychological and behavioral manifestations of cognitive impairment is in accordance with existing evidence suggesting that male dementia patients are more likely than females to present aggressiveness (Kitamura et al., 2012; Resnick et al., 2021). Additionally, only among those aged 80 and above, a higher level of Fear-Affect and a lower level of Self-Efficacy was presented among mild DAT group compared to the NC or the MCI group. This suggests that those in later aging may be more vulnerable in the face of even very mild symptoms of cognitive impairment. Our study points to the need of carefully evaluating the emotional health of those aged 80 and above with even very mild cognitive impairment symptoms, and to provide additional support to alleviate anxiety and promote self-efficacy.

Study Limitations

We now outline some limitations of the present study. First, our results were based on a sample comprised mostly of adults with a college or postgraduate education, and thus, the results may not be generalizable to participants with lower educational attainment. Given that participants with low educational attainment are most vulnerable to negative cognitive and emotional outcomes of neurodegenerative diseases (Katzman, 1993; Stern et al., 1999), future research is needed to better understand the emotional functioning of this group. Second, although our sample was balanced in racial and ethnical distribution, we only focused on English-speaking older adults in the US. Since the language spoken is an indicator of culture and an important factor influencing emotional processing and attitude towards aging, future research needs to expand to populations outside of US and to non-English speaking cultures (Fung, 2013; Park et al., 1999). Third, based on current data, our study could not examine living arrangements as an important covariate associated with a wide range of emotional experiences among older adults living with cognitive impairment. Future studies of cognitive and emotional aging should further examine living arrangements as a potential protective mechanism in the face of cognitive impairment. Fourth, while the cross-sectional study design allowed us to establish baseline differences in various aspects of emotional functioning across the NC, MCI, and mild DAT groups, future investigation to assess longitudinal changes to emotional functioning across these three groups may prove beneficial. Lastly, even though the risk of anosognosia, or lack of awareness of one’s own cognitive deficit and emotional experiences, is less prevalent at the stages of MCI or mild DAT, we cannot preclude the possibility that these self-reported emotion measures may not accurately or fully represent the emotional experiences of participants due to the influence of cognitive impairment, recall bias, and social desirability.

Conclusion

In the early stages of cognitive impairment, older adults maintain similar levels of positive affect, meaning and purpose, life satisfaction, and social relationship, despite elevated levels of negative affect, sadness, and loneliness compared to the NC group. These baseline differences established in this study have important implications for intervention strategies and lay the ground for examining longitudinal trajectories of emotional health across these three groups in the future.

Supplementary Material

Zhang_PMID37800686_JAgingHealth_2024_Suppl

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by National Institute on Aging (grant number: No. 1U2CAG057441).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Data availability statement

Approximately 12 months after the conclusion of the ARMADA study, the data and analytic methods that support the findings will be available at the Harvard Dataverse.

References

  1. A Marshall G, S Zoller A, Lorius N, E Amariglio R, J Locascio J, A Johnson K, & Initiative ASDN (2015). Functional activities questionnaire items that best discriminate and predict progression from clinically normal to mild cognitive impairment. Current Alzheimer Research, 12(5), 493–502. 10.2174/156720501205150526115003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arenaza-Urquijo EM, & Vemuri P (2020). Improving the resistance and resilience framework for aging and dementia studies. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, 12(1), 1–4. 10.1186/s13195-020-00609-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayhan Y, Yoseph SA, & Miller BL (2023). Management of psychiatric symptoms in dementia. Neurologic Clinics, 41(1), 123–139. 10.1016/j.ncl.2022.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Babakhanyan I, McKenna BS, Casaletto KB, Nowinski CJ, & Heaton RK (2018). National institutes of health toolbox emotion battery for English-and Spanish-speaking adults: Normative data and factor-based summary scores. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 9, 115–127. 10.2147/PROM.S151658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ballard CG, Gauthier S, Cummings JL, Brodaty H, Grossberg GT, Robert P, & Lyketsos CG (2009). Management of agitation and aggression associated with Alzheimer disease. Nature Reviews Neurology, 5(5), 245–255. 10.1038/nrneurol.2009.39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Balouch S, Rifaat E, Chen HL, & Tabet N (2019). Social networks and loneliness in people with Alzheimer’s dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 34(5), 666–673. 10.1002/gps.5065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell G, Singham T, Saunders R, John A, & Stott J (2022). Positive psychological constructs and association with reduced risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 77, 101594. 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carbone E, Piras F, Pellegrini FF, Caffarra P, & Borella E (2022). Individual differences among older adults with mild and moderate dementia in social and emotional loneliness and their associations with cognitive and psychological functioning. BMC Geriatrics, 22(1), 859. 10.1186/s12877-022-03517-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlozzi N, Goodnight S, Casaletto K, Goldsmith A, Heaton R, Wong A, & Tulsky D (2017). Validation of the NIH toolbox in individuals with neurologic disorders. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(5), 555–573. 10.1093/arclin/acx020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cerejeira J, Lagarto L, & Mukaetova-Ladinska E (2012). Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Frontiers in Neurology, 3, 23573. 10.3389/fneur.2012.00073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chaparro G, Piton L, Walker R, Izzetoglu M, Motl R, Holtzer R, & Hernandez M (2016). Effects of dual-tasking and body weight support on prefrontal activation in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(10), e125–e126. 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.08.391 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Charles ST, & Carstensen LL (2010). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 383–409. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Depp C, Vahia IV, & Jeste D (2010). Successful aging: Focus on cognitive and emotional health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 527–550. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dodge HH, Ybarra O, & Kaye JA (2014). Tools for advancing research into social networks and cognitive function in older adults. International Psychogeriatrics, 26(4), 533–539. 10.1017/S1041610213001750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dos Santos SB, Rocha GP, Fernandez LL, De Padua AC, & Reppold CT (2018). Association of lower spiritual well-being, social support, self-esteem, subjective well-being, optimism and hope scores with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 339970. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fan J, Du C, & Li X (2023). Emotional and affective disorders in cognitive aging. In Cognitive aging and brain health (pp. 63–71). Springer. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, & Buchner A (2007. May). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods, 39(2), 175–91. 10.3758/bf03193146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Folkman S, & Moskowitz JT (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 647–654. 10.1037//0003-066x.55.6.647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fox RS, Zhang M, Amagai S, Bassard A, Dworak EM, Han YC, & Giella AK (2022). Uses of the NIH Toolbox® in clinical samples: A scoping review. Neurology: Clinical Practice, 12(4), 307–319. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fung HH (2013). Aging in culture. The Gerontologist, 53(3), 369–377. 10.1093/geront/gnt024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. García-Martín V, de Hoyos-Alonso MC, Ariza-Cardiel G, Delgado-Puebla R, García-Domingo P, Hernández-Melo E, del Cura-González I (2022). Neuropsychiatric symptoms and subsyndromes in patients with different stages of dementia in primary care follow-up (NeDEM project): A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics, 22(1), 1–15. 10.1186/s12877-022-02762-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gershon RC, Wagster MV, Hendrie HC, Fox NA, Cook KF, & Nowinski CJ (2013). NIH toolbox for assessment of neurological and behavioral function. Neurology, 80(11 Suppl 3), S2–S6. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182872e5f [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gotanda H, Tsugawa Y, Xu H, & Reuben DB (2022). Life satisfaction among persons living with dementia and those without dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 71(4), 1105–1116. 10.1111/jgs.18174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Goveas JS, Rapp SR, Hogan PE, Driscoll I, Tindle HA, Smith JC, & Ockene JK (2016). Predictors of optimal cognitive aging in 80+ women: The women’s health initiative memory study. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 71(Suppl 1), S62–S71. 10.1093/gerona/glv055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Halpin SN, Dillard RL, & Puentes WJ (2017). Socioemotional adaptation theory: Charting the emotional process of Alzheimer’s disease. The Gerontologist, 57(4), 696–706. 10.1093/geront/gnw046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris PB (2008). Another wrinkle in the debate about successful aging: The undervalued concept of resilience and the lived experience of dementia. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 67(1), 43–61. 10.2190/AG.67.1.c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Holwerda TJ, Deeg DJ, Beekman AT, van Tilburg TG, Stek ML, Jonker C, & Schoevers RA (2014). Feelings of loneliness, but not social isolation, predict dementia onset: Results from the Amsterdam study of the elderly (AMSTEL). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 85(2), 135–142. 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Invernizzi S, Simoes Loureiro I, Kandana Arachchige KG, & Lefebvre L (2022). Late-life depression, cognitive impairment, and relationship with Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 50(5), 414–424. 10.1159/000519453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Irazoki E, Contreras-Somoza LM, Toribio-Guzmán JM, Jenaro-Río C, Van der Roest H, & Franco-Martín MA (2020). Technologies for cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for people with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 648. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Isaacowitz DM (2022). What do we know about aging and emotion regulation? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(6), 1541–1555. 10.1177/17456916211059819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Isik AT, Soysal P, Solmi M, & Veronese N (2019). Bidirectional relationship between caregiver burden and neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with alzheimer’s disease: A narrative review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 34(9), 1326–1334. 10.1002/gps.4965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jacus J-P, Voltzenloge V, Farrié A-J, Antoine P, & Cuervo-Lombard C-V (2023). Updates on anosognosia in Alzheimer’s disease. Geriatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie du Vieillissement, 21(1), 107–115. 10.1684/pnv.2023.1080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jean L, Bergeron M-È, Thivierge S, & Simard M (2010). Cognitive intervention programs for individuals with mild cognitive impairment: Systematic review of the literature. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(4), 281–296. 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181c37ce9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Karpouzian-Rogers T, Ho E, Novack M, Chinkers M, Bedjeti K, Nowinski C, & Weintraub S (2023). Baseline characterization of the ARMADA (assessing reliable measurement in alzheimer’s disease) study cohorts. Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 19(5), 1974–1982. 10.1002/alz.12816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Katzman R. (1993). Education and the prevalence of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 43(1), 13–20. 10.1212/wnl.43.1_part_1.13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim D, Liu Q, Quartana PJ, & Yoon KL (2022). Gender differences in aggression: A multiplicative function of outward anger expression. Aggressive Behavior, 48(4), 393–401. 10.1002/ab.22028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kitamura T, Kitamura M, Hino S, Tanaka N,& Kurata K (2012). Gender differences in clinical manifestations and outcomes among hospitalized patients with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 73(12), 1548–1554. 10.4088/JCP.11m07614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Knopman DS, & Petersen RC (2014). Mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia: A clinical perspective. Proceedings. Paper presented at the Mayo Clinic. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kupst MJ, Butt Z, Stoney CM, Griffith JW, Salsman JM, Folkman S, & Cella D (2015). Assessment of stress and self-efficacy for the NIH toolbox for neurological and behavioral function. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 28(5), 531–544. 10.1080/10615806.2014.994204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lanctoôt KL, Amatniek J, Ancoli-Israel S, Arnold SE, Ballard C, Cohen-Mansfield J, & Musiek E (2017). Neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: New treatment paradigms. Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, 3(3), 440–449. 10.1016/j.trci.2017.07.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Larouche E, Hudon C, & Goulet S (2015). Potential benefits of mindfulness-based interventions in mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer’s disease: An interdisciplinary perspective. Behavioural Brain Research, 276, 199–212. 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.05.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lopez FV, Schade R, Ratajska A, Kenney L, Rodriguez K, Ray A, & Bowers D (2023). Unpacking the NIH toolbox emotion battery in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 38(2), 205–212. 10.1093/arclin/acac088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ma L. (2020). Depression, anxiety, and apathy in mild cognitive impairment: Current perspectives. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 12, 9. 10.3389/fnagi.2020.00009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Martyr A, Nelis SM, Quinn C, Wu Y-T, Lamont RA, Henderson C, & Jones IR (2018). Living well with dementia: A systematic review and correlational meta-analysis of factors associated with quality of life, well-being and life satisfaction in people with dementia. Psychological medicine, 48(13), 2130–2139. 10.1017/S0033291718000405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. McGirr A, Nathan S, Ghahremani M, Gill S, Smith EE, & Ismail Z (2022). Progression to dementia or reversion to normal cognition in mild cognitive impairment as a function of late-onset neuropsychiatric symptoms. Neurology, 98(21), e2132–e2139. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Meier T, Huber Z, Dworakowski O, Haase C, Martin M, & Horn A (2021). Shared positivity in daily life of younger and older couples: Links between we-ness and positive emotions. Innovation in Aging, 5(Supplement_1), 559–559. 10.1093/geroni/igab046.2147 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mouelhi Y, Jouve E, Castelli C, & Gentile S (2020). How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 136–217. 10.1186/s12955-020-01344-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ong AD, Mroczek DK, & Riffin C (2011). The health significance of positive emotions in adulthood and later life. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(8), 538–551. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00370.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Orgeta V, Leung P, del-Pino-Casado R, Qazi A, Orrell M, Spector AE, & Methley AM (2022). Psychological treatments for depression and anxiety in dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014(1), CD009125. 10.1002/14651858.CD009125.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Palmer K, Di Iulio F, Varsi AE, Gianni W, Sancesario G, Caltagirone C, & Spalletta G (2010). Neuropsychiatric predictors of progression from amnestic-mild cognitive impairment to alzheimer’s disease: The role of depression and apathy. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 20(1), 175–183. 10.3233/JAD-2010-1352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Park DC, Nisbett R, & Hedden T (1999). Aging, culture, and cognition. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 54(2), P75–P84. 10.1093/geronb/54b.2.p75 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Peres K, Chrysostome V, Fabrigoule C, Orgogozo J, Dartigues J, & Barberger-Gateau P (2006). Restriction in complex activities of daily living in MCI: Impact on outcome. Neurology, 67(3), 461–466. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000228228.70065.f1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Pilkonis PA, Choi SW, Salsman JM, Butt Z, Moore TL, Lawrence SM, & Knox SS (2013). Assessment of self-reported negative affect in the NIH Toolbox. Psychiatry Research, 206(1), 88–97. 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.09.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Pressman SD, & Cohen S (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 925–971. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Pressman SD, Jenkins BN, & Moskowitz JT (2019). Positive affect and health: What do we know and where next should we go? Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 627–650. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Resnick B, Galik E, McPherson R, Boltz M, Van Haitsma K, & Kolanowski A (2021). Gender differences in disease, function, and behavioral symptoms in residents with dementia. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 44(9), Article 01939459211018822. 10.1177/01939459211018822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Salsman JM, Butt Z, Pilkonis PA, Cyranowski JM, Zill N, Hendrie HC, & Choi SW (2013). Emotion assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology, 80(11 Supplement 3), S76–S86. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182872e11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Salsman JM, Lai J-S, Hendrie HC, Butt Z, Zill N, Pilkonis PA, & Cella D (2014). Assessing psychological well-being: Self-report instruments for the NIH toolbox. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 205–215. 10.1007/s11136-013-0452-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Scheibe S, & Carstensen LL (2010). Emotional aging: Recent findings and future trends. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 65(2), 135–144. 10.1093/geronb/gbp132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Starkstein SE (2014). Anosognosia in alzheimer’s disease: Diagnosis, frequency, mechanism and clinical correlates. Cortex, 61, 64–73. 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Stern Y, Albert S, Tang M-X, & Tsai W-Y (1999). Rate of memory decline in AD is related to education and occupation: Cognitive reserve? Neurology, 53(9), 1942–1942. 10.1212/wnl.53.9.1942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Sutin AR, Stephan Y, Luchetti M, & Terracciano A (2020). Loneliness and risk of dementia. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75(7), 1414–1422. 10.1093/geronb/gby112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Sutin AR, Stephan Y, & Terracciano A (2018). Psychological well-being and risk of dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 33(5), 743–747. 10.1002/gps.4849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Baarsen B, Snijders TA, Smit JH, & Van Duijn MA (2001). Lonely but not alone: Emotional isolation and social isolation as two distinct dimensions of loneliness in older people. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 119–135. 10.1177/00131640121971103 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. van der Linde RM, Stephan BC, Savva GM, Dening T, & Brayne C (2012). Systematic reviews on behavioural and psychological symptoms in the older or demented population. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, 4(4), 28. 10.1186/alzrt131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Van der Mussele S, Le Bastard N, Saerens J, Somers N, Mariën P, Goeman J, & Engelborghs S (2015). Agitation-associated behavioral symptoms in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s dementia. Aging & Mental Health, 19(3), 247–257. 10.1080/13607863.2014.924900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Victor CR, Rippon I, Nelis SM, Martyr A, Litherland R, Pickett J, & Clare L (2020). Prevalence and determinants of loneliness in people living with dementia: Findings from the IDEAL programme. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 35(8), 851–858. 10.1002/gps.5305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Weintraub S, Karpouzian-Rogers T, Peipert JD, Nowinski C, Slotkin J, Wortman K, & Gershon R (2021). Assessing reliable measurement in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive aging project methods. Under review in Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 18(8), 1449–1460. 10.1002/alz.12497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Weintraub S, Karpouzian-Rogers T, Peipert JD, Nowinski C, Slotkin J, Wortman K, & Giordani B (2022). ARMADA: Assessing reliable measurement in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive aging project methods. Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 18(8), 1449–1460. 10.1002/alz.12497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Yu K, Wild K, Dowling NM, Kaye JA, Silbert LC, & Dodge HH (2022). Emotional characteristics of socially isolated older adults with MCI using tablet administered NIH toolbox: I-CONECT study. Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring, 14(1), e12372. 10.1002/dad2.12372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zank S, & Leipold B (2001). The relationship between severity of dementia and subjective well-being. Aging & Mental Health, 5(2), 191–196. 10.1080/13607860120038375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Zuidema SU, de Jonghe JF, Verhey FR, & Koopmans RT (2009). Predictors of neuropsychiatric symptoms in nursing home patients: Influence of gender and dementia severity. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: A journal of the psychiatry of late life and allied sciences, 24(10), 1079–1086. 10.1002/gps.2225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Zhang_PMID37800686_JAgingHealth_2024_Suppl
NIHMS2063788-supplement-Zhang_PMID37800686_JAgingHealth_2024_Suppl.pdf (425.1KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

Approximately 12 months after the conclusion of the ARMADA study, the data and analytic methods that support the findings will be available at the Harvard Dataverse.

RESOURCES