THE COMING AGE OF HUMAN LIFE EXTENSION: EXPLORATION OF ATTITUDES - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

THE COMING AGE OF HUMAN LIFE EXTENSION: EXPLORATION OF ATTITUDES ON LIFE EXTENDING INTERVENTIONS IN SEPARATE SAMPLES OF YOUNGER AND OLDER ADULTS

Hall, S.S. (2013, May). On beyond 100. National Geographic, 28-49. Carstensen, L. (2015, February). This baby could live to be 142 years old: dispatches from the frontiers of longevity. Time Magazine.

Loren A. Martin, Ph.D. Department of Clinical Psychology Azusa Pacific University

KEY CONCEPTS

• Weak Life Extension- increasing the average life expectancy

without increasing the life span. Defined as living to age 100 for

• ur purpose.
• Strong Life Extension- increasing the life expectancy beyond the

current life span estimate. Defined as living to age 150 for our purpose.

• Indefinite Life Extension- increasing the life span an infinite

number of years without any negative effects of aging

WEAK LIFE EXTENSION

• Imagine that a pill is made available that would increase your life

expectancy to 100 years. If you are to take this pill, as you grow

• lder from this point onward, you would not experience any further

decline in age related medical conditions. The pill only needs to be taken once, and is easily affordable. You will only be offered this pill today, and must decide whether you would like to use it now, or not at all. Assume that if this pill was made widely available, there would be no social or economic repercussions (e.g. larger workforce, lack

• f job openings for younger generations, scarce resources)

LIKERT RESPONSES

MORTALITY SALIENCE VULNERABILITY

• Age recognized as an important factor in mortality salience
• Likert rating of physical health also recognized as an

important factor in mortality salience

QUALITY OF LIFE ENJOYMENT AND SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE–SHORT FORM (Q-LES–Q-SF)

• Developed by Endicott et al., 1993.
• Used with both clinical and nonclinical populations
• 16 item short form condensed from original 93 item

instrument

• Measures quality of life in areas such as physical health, mood,

leisure activities, social relationships, and overall well being

DEATH ATTITUDE PROFILE-REVISED (DAP-R)

• Revised version developed by Wong et al., 1994
• 32 statements measuring death attitudes on 7-point Likert

scale

• 5 different factors: fear of death and death avoidance (negative

death attitudes), Approach-oriented death acceptance and escape-oriented death acceptance (positive death attitudes), neutral death acceptance (neutral death attitude)

SPIRITUAL BELIEFS SCALE (SBS)

• Developed by Cicirelli, 2011
• Measures both religious and nonreligious transcendent

experiences of spirituality

• Only the religious subscale was used in this study consisting of

10 Likert items

GOD’S WILL SCALE (GW)

• Developed by Winter et al., 2009
• Measures the willingness to defer to God’s will
• 5 Likert items

AFTERLIFE BELIEFS

• 3 Likert items developed for this study measuring the

existence of an afterlife, the belief that the participant will participate in this afterlife, and the belief that his or her experience of the afterlife will be a positive one

INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC SCALES OF RELIGIOSITY- REVISED (I/E-R)

• Developed by Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989
• Measures the levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for

the use of a religious framework by an individual

• 14 Likert items measuring intrinsic orientation, extrinsic-

personal orientation, and extrinsic-social orientation

STUDY I

197 PARTICIPANTS OUT OF A GROUP OF 1200 UG AND GRADUATE STUDENTS AT APU WHO WERE RANDOMLY SELECTED TO RECEIVE AN EMAIL INVITATION TO COMPLETE THE ONLINE SURVEY

OVERALL DIFFERENCES IN LIFE EXTENSION DESIRABILITY

GENDER DIFFERENCES

STUDY II

279 PARTICIPANTS AGED 65+ Ø112 SURVEYS RETURNED VIA MAIL Ø167 SURVEYS ADMINISTERED IN PERSON

OVERALL DIFFERENCES IN LIFE EXTENSION DESIRABILITY

Outcome: Weak LE (100) > Strong LE (150) > Indefinite LE (∞)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W use W research S use S research I use I research

Comparing Different Forms of LE

Desirability

Main Effect

GENDER AND RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES IN LED

LE type Result for GENDER Weak LE use M > F Weak LE research No significant difference Strong LE use M > F Strong LE research No significant difference Indefinite LE use No significant difference Indefinite LE research M > F LE type Result for Christian vs Non-Christian Weak LE use Non-Chr. > Chr. Weak LE research Non-Chr. > Chr. Strong LE use Non-Chr. > Chr. Strong LE research Non-Chr. > Chr. Indefinite LE use No significant difference Indefinite LE research Non-Chr. > Chr.

AGE AND EDUCATION DIFFERENCES IN LED

LE type Differences seen for AGE Weak LE use No significant differences Weak LE research No significant differences Strong LE use YO > MO; YO > OO (no sig. dif b/t MO & OO) Strong LE research No significant differences Indefinite LE use YO > MO ; YO > OO(no sig. dif b/t MO & OO) Indefinite LE research No significant differences LE type Differences seen for EDUCATION Weak LE use GS > SC > HS > BHS Weak LE research GS > CG > SC > HS > BHS Strong LE use GS > HS Strong LE research No significant differences Indefinite LE use No significant differences Indefinite LE research No significant differences

Intrinsic Religiosity Weak Life Extension Strong Life Extension Indefinite Life Extension Positive Death Affect Negative Death Affect Approach Acceptance Escape Acceptance Fear of death Death avoidance Meaning Derived from Religion Positive Expectation

• f Afterlife

Religious beliefs Male Young Old More Education Non- Christian Demographics Inverse Relationship Positive Relationship Quality o Life

SIGNIFICANT LIFE EXTENSION DESIRABILITY FACTORS

Desire-Facilitating Factors (at any LED level use or research)

Male gender Non Christian religious affiliation Higher education level Younger age Higher quality of life Lower Mortality Salience Vulnerability (age and subjective physical Health) Negative attitudes towards death: fear of death, death avoidance, and overall negative death affect Weak LE (100yrs) > Strong LE (150 yrs) > Indefinite (no age-related death) Surveys given in-person

Non- Facilitating / Non-Hindering Factors (at any LED level use or research)

Race/Ethnicity* Catholic vs. Protestant Level of extrinsic religiosity

SIGNIFICANT LIFE EXTENSION DESIRABILITY FACTORS

Desire-Hindering Factors (at any LED level use or research)

Female gender Christian religious affiliation Lower education level Older age Lower quality of life Higher Mortality Salience Vulnerability (age and subjective physical Health) Hope of a positive afterlife Positive Death attitudes: approach-oriented acceptance and escape-oriented acceptance Higher intrinsic religiosity Higher level of religious-based meaning making Indefinite (no age-related death) < Strong LE (150 yrs) < Weak LE (100yrs) Mailer Surveys

COMPARISON OF STUDIES

Study I

• Surveys were completed online
• Mean age of 197 participants

was 24.27

• Included God’s Will Scale

Study II

• Surveys were completed in

person or via mail

• Mean age of 279 participants

was 77.08

• Included Education and

Christian vs. non-Christian

COMPARISON OF STUDIES: RESULTS

Study I

• Death attitudes related to LED
• Religious beliefs and religiosity

related to LED

• No relationship with age or

quality of life

Study II

• Death attitude findings confirmed

and extended

• Religious belief and religiosity

findings confirmed and extended

• Age and quality of life related to

LED

LIMITATIONS

• Different survey administration methods
• Mostly white sample- 60% and 94% respectively
• Mostly Christian sample- 95% and 82% respectively

FUTURE RESEARCH

• Research should also be conducted looking at how the attitudes

and attributes of physicians and other health care providers who are part of the decision-making process are related to life extension attitudes.

• Physicians’ level of religiosity, psychological factors, and

ethical concerns were found to affect their decision to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment in Chung, Yoon, Rasinski, & Curlin (2016).

Chung, G.S., Yoon, J.D., Rasinski, K.A., & Curlin, F.A. (2016) US physicians’ opinions about distinctions between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining treatment. Journal of Religion And Health. Doi: 10.1007/s10943-015- 0171-x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• Dr. Scott Ballinger
• Dr. Kelsey Fitzgerald
• Dr. Theresa Tisdale
• Rev. Dr. David Sellen
• Dr. Lynn Wood