This article makes a plea for experimental designs in the field of adult development and aging using an approach to research inspired by the work of Egon Brunswik. Our recommendations are intended to complement correlational approaches and to enhance the testing of explanatory mechanisms. Our arguments are predicated on the fact that the field of adult development and aging faces particular methodological challenges stemming from the investigation of individual differences approached with age group comparison designs. Many studies on adult development and aging use extreme-group comparisons, contrasting young and older adults, although such comparisons can lead to the overestimation of age-related effects. Moreover, age group membership is used as a proxy variable for psychological processes leading to the observed age-related differences. The inherent correlational design of such age group comparisons can only approximate a test of the underlying psychological processes causing the differences between the groups. We consider these problems and potential solutions to them involving a Brunswikian approach to experimental design in research on adult development and aging, and we discuss implications for theory-predicated research in other subfields of developmental science with similar methodological issues.

Keywords:
Adult development and aging, Age group comparisons, Brunswik, Experimental design, Methods
1.
Baltes, P.B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and generation effects. Human Development, 11, 145-171.
2.
Baltes, P.B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366-380.
3.
Baltes, P.B., Reese, H.W., & Lipsitt, L.P. (1980). Life-span developmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 65-110.
4.
Baltes, P.B., Reese, H.W., & Nesselroade, J.R. (1977). Life-span developmental psychology: An introduction to research methods. Monterey: Brooks Cole.
5.
Baltes, P.B., & Smith, J. (2003). New frontiers in the future of aging: From successful aging of the young old to the dilemmas of the fourth age. Gerontology, 49, 123-135.
6.
Birren, J.E. (1999). Theories of aging: A personal perspective. In V.L. Bengtson & K.W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 3-20). San Diego: Academic Press.
7.
Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., Lövdén, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2011). Normal aging dampens the link between intrusive thoughts and negative affect in reaction to daily stressors. Psychology and Aging, 26, 488-502.
8.
Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. International encyclopedia of unified science. Vol. 1, No. 10 (pp. 656-760). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.
10.
Carstensen, L.L., Isaacowitz, D.M., & Charles, S.T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.
11.
Chen, Y. (2004). Age differences in the correction of social judgments: Source monitoring and timing of accountability. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 11, 58-67.
12.
Dannefer, D. (2003). Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course: Cross-fertilizing age and social science theory. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58, S327-S337.
13.
Depping, M., & Freund, A.M. (in press). When choice matters: Task-dependent memory effects in older adulthood. Psychology and Aging.
14.
Dhami, M.K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 959-988.
15.
Elashoff, J.D. (1969). Analysis of covariance: A delicate instrument. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 383-401.
16.
Fiedler, K. (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere - not just in neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 163-171.
17.
Fredrickson, B.L., & Carstensen, L.L. (1990). Choosing social partners: How old age and anticipated endings make people more selective. Psychology and Aging, 5, 335-347.
18.
Freund, A.M., & Ritter, J.O. (2009). Midlife crisis: A debate. Gerontology, 55, 582-591.
19.
Fung, H.H., & Carstensen, L.L. (2003). Sending memorable messages to the old: Age differences in preferences and memory for advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 163-178.
20.
Fung, H.H., Carstensen, L.L., & Lutz, A.M. (1999). Influence of time on social preferences: Implications for life-span development. Psychology and Aging, 14, 595-604.
21.
Gerstorf, D., Ram, N., Hoppmann, C., Willis, S.L., & Schaie, K.W. (2011). Cohort differences in cognitive aging and terminal decline in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1026-1041.
22.
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506-528.
23.
Greenwald, A.G. (2012). There is nothing so theoretical as a good method. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 99-108.
24.
Hammond, K.R. (1998a). Ecological validity: Then and now. Retrieved from http://www.brunswik.org/notes/essay2.html.
25.
Hammond, K.R. (1998b). Representative design. Retrieved from http://www.brunswik.org/notes/essay3.html.
26.
Hertzog, C., & Nesselroade, J.R. (2003). Assessing psychological change in adulthood: An overview of methodological issues. Psychology and Aging, 18, 639-657.
27.
Hess, T.M. (2005). Memory and aging in context. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 383-406.
28.
Hess, T.M., Rosenberg, D.C., & Waters, S.J. (2001). Motivation and representational processes in adulthood: The effects of social accountability and information relevance. Psychology and Aging, 16, 629-642.
29.
Hofer, S.M., & Sliwinski, M.J. (2001). Understanding ageing: An evaluation of research designs for assessing the interdependence of ageing-related changes. Gerontology, 47, 341-352.
30.
Hoffman, L., Hofer, S.M., & Sliwinski, M.J. (2011). On the confounds among retest gains and age-cohort differences in the estimation of within-person change in longitudinal studies: A simulation study. Psychology and Aging, 26, 778-791.
31.
Isaacowitz, D.M., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2012). Linking process and outcome in the study of emotion and aging. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 3-17.
32.
Isaacowitz, D.M., & Stanley, J.T. (2011). Bringing an ecological perspective to the study of aging and emotion recognition: Past, current, and future methods. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 261-278.
33.
Jackson, J.J., Thoemmes, F., Jonkmann, K., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2012). Military training and personality trait development: Does the military make the man, or does the man make the military? Psychological Sciences, 23, 270-277.
34.
Kunzmann, U., & Grühn, D. (2005). Age differences in emotional reactivity: The sample case of sadness. Psychology and Aging, 20, 47-59.
35.
Lerner, R.M. (2012). Developmental science: Past, present and future. International Journal of Developmental Science, 6, 29-36.
36.
Lerner R.M., Schwartz, S.J., & Phelps, E. (2009). Problematics of time and timing in the longitudinal study of human development: Theoretical and methodological issues. Human Development, 52, 44-68.
37.
Li, K.Z., Lindenberger, U., Freund, A.M., & Baltes, P.B. (2001). Walking while memorizing: Age-related differences in compensatory behavior. Psychological Science, 12, 230-237.
38.
Li, S.C., Lindenberger, U., Hommel, B., Aschersleben, G., Prinz, W., & Baltes, P.B. (2004). Transformations in the couplings among intellectual abilities and constituent cognitive processes across the life span. Psychological Science, 15, 155-163.
39.
Lindenberger, U., & Pötter, U. (1998). The complex nature of unique and shared effects in hierarchical linear regression: Implications for developmental psychology. Psychological Methods, 3, 218-230.
40.
Lindenberger, U., Scherer, H., & Baltes, P.B. (2001). The strong connection between sensory and cognitive performance in old age: Not due to sensory acuity reductions operating during cognitive assessment. Psychology and Aging, 16, 196-205.
41.
Lindenberger, U., von Oertzen, T., Ghisletta, P., & Hertzog, C. (2011). Cross-sectional age variance extraction: What's change got to do with it? Psychology and Aging, 26, 34-47.
42.
McArdle, J.J. (2008). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577-605.
43.
Miller, G.A., & Chapman, J.P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 40-48.
44.
Murphy, N.A., Lehrfeld, J., & Isaacowitz, D.M. (2010). Recognition of posed and spontaneous dynamic smiles in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 811-821.
45.
Nesselroade, J.R. (1991). The warp and woof of the developmental fabric. In R. Downs, L. Liben, & D.S. Palermo (Eds.), Visions of aesthetics, the environment, and development: The legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwill (pp. 213-240). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
46.
Overton, W.F. (2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 94-107.
47.
Park, D.C., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. (2009). The adaptive brain: Aging and neurocognitive scaffolding. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 173-196.
48.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., MacCallum, R.C., & Nicewander, W.A. (2005). Use of the extreme groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10, 178-192.
49.
Richter, D., Dietzel, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2010). Age differences in emotion recognition: The task matters. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66, 48-55.
50.
Richter, D., & Kunzmann, U. (2011). Age differences in three facets of empathy: Performance-based evidence. Psychology and Aging, 26, 60-70.
51.
Riediger, M., & Freund, A.M. (2008). Me against myself: Motivational conflicts and emotional development in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 23, 479-494.
52.
Rovenpor, D., Skogsberg, N., & Isaacowitz, D.M. (2013). The choices we make: An examination of situation selection in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 28, 365-376.
53.
Schaie, K.W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92-107.
54.
Schaie, K.W., & Baltes, P.B. (1975). On sequential strategies in developmental research: Description or explanation? Human Development, 18, 384-390.
55.
Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366.
56.
Sliwinski, M.J., & Hofer, S.M. (1999). How strong is the evidence for mediational hypotheses of age-related memory loss? Gerontology, 45, 351-354.
57.
Stuart, E.A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25, 1-21.
58.
Wilson, R.S., Beck, T.L., Bienias, J.L., & Bennett, D.A. (2007). Terminal cognitive decline: Accelerated loss of cognition in the last years of life. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 131-137.
59.
Wohlwill, J.F. (1970). The age variable in psychological research. Psychological Review, 77, 49-64.
60.
Zabel, K.L., Christopher, A.N., Marek, P., Wieth, M.B., & Carlson, J.J. (2009). Mediational effects of sensation seeking on the age and financial risk-taking relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 917-921.
61.
Zarit, S.H., Kim, K., Femia, E.E., Almeida, D.M., Savla, J., & Molenaar, P.C.M. (2011). Effects of adult day care on daily stress of caregivers: A within-person approach. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66, 538-546.
62.
Zimprich, D., Allemand, M., & Lachman, M.E. (2012). Factorial structure and age-related psychometrics of the MIDUS personality adjective items across the life span. Psychological Assessment, 24, 173-186.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.