Psychosocial aspects of successful ageing and resilience: critique,integration and implications / Aspectos psicológicos del envejecimiento exitoso y la resiliencia: crítica,integración e implicaciones

Abstract

As the number of older adults increases worldwide, it is becoming increasingly important to find effective ways of fostering better ageing trajectories. The models used to shape this process inform research, policy and practice and impact older adults themselves. Two important ageing models are successful ageing (SA) and resilience (RES). Aligning the conceptual framework in research contexts with those of older adults’ perspectives is an integral component of driving forward the research agenda in a manner that has the greatest potential to benefit older adults. Studies conducted with laypersons indicate that psychosocial components are important components of successful ageing models; therefore, it is imperative that these non-biomedical components are incorporated. There are many similarities between SA and RES models, but an important distinguishing feature is the incorporation of adversity into conceptualizations of resilience. SA models suggest high levels of functioning as a requirement for ageing successfully, regardless of the circumstances the individual experiences; resilience models take into account the level of adversity being experienced by the individual. Individuals can demonstrate RES by having a more positive outcome than would be expected given their level of adversity. The incorporation of psychosocial constructs into SA models and the integration of SA and RES paradigms has important implications for research and for older adults themselves. Through the promotion of models of ageing that include psychosocial components and elements of adversity, greater generalizability to a broader population is possible with enhanced potential for research derived from these efforts to more positively influence individuals’ trajectories of ageing.     

Generational Conversion? The Role of Religiosity in the Politics of Evangelicals

The political environment for evangelical Protestants has changed substantially since the Christian Right reached its apex, as a more issue and ideologically diffuse political environment has emerged. The present study tests two different theoretical perspectives on whether these contextual changes may have altered Millennial evangelicals’ political perspectives vis‐à‐vis those of previous generations of evangelicals. On the one hand, theoretical perspectives related to differential political socialization processes across generations would lead to expectations of generational change among evangelicals. On the other hand, theoretical perspectives related to social identity theory would suggest far less change across generations. Using Pew's 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, we test these expectations by comparing the relationships between religiosity and political attitudes across three generations of evangelicals. Ordered probit and logistic regression models estimate the impact of religiosity on various political attitudes. These models reveal that Millennial evangelical religiosity continues to be strongly related to Republican Party identification and opposition toward abortion, which is largely consistent with the social identity perspective. Generational change is most evident in a variety of nonsocial issues in which religiosity is associated with less conservatism among Millennials. Additional analysis using the 2012 Religion and Politics Survey with a smaller sample of Millennial evangelicals confirms these results.     

Lost in Translation? The Need for ‘Upstream Engagement’ with Nanotechnology on Trial

Nowadays, the criticism of the so-called ‘deficit model’ and the need for ‘upstream engagement’ in science and technology are becoming part of the master narratives of public policies in many countries, especially concerning nanotechnology. This may be considered as a major success for STS scholars, whose research results have largely contributed to this change, especially those concerning the GMO controversies. Some STS scholars thus move from a position of distant and critical observers to the role of experts in social engineering or advisers of policy-makers. However, in their enthusiasm concerning the expected benefits of upstream engagement, institutions, TA practitioners and social scientists seem to ignore some important limitations as well as the implicit framing assumptions of the concept. Based on an experience made by a group of social scientists in the Grenoble area—one of the major ‘nanodistricts’ in Europe—our paper shows that the ‘upstream engagement’ concept is still embedded in a linear model of innovation and is not very useful to anyone pursuing the co-production of innovations. It is especially true when socio-technical networks are already aligned by powerful actors and a worldwide agenda as in the case of nanotechnology. In order to give an opportunity for public engagement to have a larger impact on decision-making, we propose an alternative approach, which combines Actor–Network Theory (ANT), as an analytical tool, with the reflexive and ongoing implementation of public participation. Public engagement is probably one of the critical loci where STS scholars must reflect on the articulation between the knowledge they produce and public policies in action.