Occupation-related differences in cognitive aging: Comparative effects of job type, skill level, and education

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Intelligence Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2024.101877
Stephen Aichele , Antony Payton , Andrew C. Robinson , Patrick Rabbitt
{"title":"Occupation-related differences in cognitive aging: Comparative effects of job type, skill level, and education","authors":"Stephen Aichele ,&nbsp;Antony Payton ,&nbsp;Andrew C. Robinson ,&nbsp;Patrick Rabbitt","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A century of psychometric research has shown that intelligence is robustly associated with occupational status. Despite a rapidly aging global workforce, occupational differences in cognitive decline remain under-investigated. In a large sample of middle-aged and older adults (<em>N</em> = 5542; age 41–97 years; 70.6 % female), we compared age-based trajectories of general fluid cognition across occupational groups (categorized both by specialization area and skill level). Occupational grouping accounted for 18.6 % of variability in baseline cognitive performance and 3.9 % of variability in rates of decline. Cognitive differences across occupational groups generally followed a skill gradient. These differences were largely retained with increasing age—although between-group variability in rates of decline were also present. Moreover, occupation-cognition associations remained significant after adjustment for education (occupation contributed an additional 5.9 % and 1.8 % to explained variation in baseline cognitive performance and decline in performance, respectively). Having more hobbies in later life accounted for an additional 2.7 % and 1.2 % in explained variation for baseline differences and declines in cognition, respectively. These associations were minimally affected by further adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle covariates, including retirement status. The marked contrast between the cognitive trajectories of academic professionals vs. those of other occupational groups suggests that long-term immersive intellectual engagement may provide tangible benefits for cognitive aging.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 101877"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000710","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A century of psychometric research has shown that intelligence is robustly associated with occupational status. Despite a rapidly aging global workforce, occupational differences in cognitive decline remain under-investigated. In a large sample of middle-aged and older adults (N = 5542; age 41–97 years; 70.6 % female), we compared age-based trajectories of general fluid cognition across occupational groups (categorized both by specialization area and skill level). Occupational grouping accounted for 18.6 % of variability in baseline cognitive performance and 3.9 % of variability in rates of decline. Cognitive differences across occupational groups generally followed a skill gradient. These differences were largely retained with increasing age—although between-group variability in rates of decline were also present. Moreover, occupation-cognition associations remained significant after adjustment for education (occupation contributed an additional 5.9 % and 1.8 % to explained variation in baseline cognitive performance and decline in performance, respectively). Having more hobbies in later life accounted for an additional 2.7 % and 1.2 % in explained variation for baseline differences and declines in cognition, respectively. These associations were minimally affected by further adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle covariates, including retirement status. The marked contrast between the cognitive trajectories of academic professionals vs. those of other occupational groups suggests that long-term immersive intellectual engagement may provide tangible benefits for cognitive aging.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知老化中与职业相关的差异:工作类型、技能水平和教育程度的比较效应
一个世纪的心理测量研究表明,智力与职业状况密切相关。尽管全球劳动力迅速老龄化,但认知能力下降的职业差异仍未得到充分研究。我们对大量中老年人样本(样本数:5542;年龄:41-97 岁;70.6% 为女性)进行了研究,比较了不同职业群体(按专业领域和技能水平分类)基于年龄的一般流体认知轨迹。职业分组占基线认知能力差异的 18.6%,占下降率差异的 3.9%。不同职业类别之间的认知差异一般呈技能梯度分布。随着年龄的增长,这些差异在很大程度上得以保持--尽管在下降率方面也存在组间差异。此外,在对教育程度进行调整后,职业与认知之间的关联仍然显著(职业分别为基线认知能力和能力下降的变异提供了 5.9% 和 1.8% 的额外解释)。晚年拥有更多爱好分别对基线差异和认知能力下降的解释变量增加了 2.7% 和 1.2%。进一步调整社会人口学和生活方式协变量(包括退休状况)后,这些关联的影响微乎其微。学术界专业人士与其他职业群体的认知轨迹之间的明显对比表明,长期沉浸式的智力活动可能会为认知老化带来切实的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Intelligence
Intelligence PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
64
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: This unique journal in psychology is devoted to publishing original research and theoretical studies and review papers that substantially contribute to the understanding of intelligence. It provides a new source of significant papers in psychometrics, tests and measurement, and all other empirical and theoretical studies in intelligence and mental retardation.
期刊最新文献
A special contribution from spatial ability to math word problem solving: Evidence from structural equation modelling and network analysis Occupation-related differences in cognitive aging: Comparative effects of job type, skill level, and education Investigating measurement invariance of the IDS-2 intelligence scales between migrant and non-migrant groups Investment theory and tilt: Evidence from jobs and job families DNA and IQ: Big deal or much ado about nothing? – A meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1