Academic Abstract People want to pursue happiness but often fail, a phenomenon known as the paradox of pursuing happiness. The mechanisms underlying this paradox remain elusive. Age differences in happiness—specifically that older adults appear more successful in pursuing happiness (the emotion paradox of aging)—provide valuable insights into effective happiness pursuit. Drawing on this literature, we propose an intergoal compatibility account to interpret both paradoxes through the lens of intergoal interactions, an intuitively critical yet underexplored factor in existing interpretations. This account asserts that greater compatibility (fewer conflicts and greater facilitation) between happiness pursuit and other important personal goals enhances the effectiveness of happiness pursuit, and such compatibility can be enhanced through contextual influences (e.g., age-graded developmental tasks) and strategic self-regulation (e.g., goal adjustments). This account generates testable predictions and practical implications for enhancing happiness pursuit across the lifespan. Public Abstract Why do people often struggle to achieve happiness? And why are older adults happier than younger adults, even though they face more losses in life? While these questions have drawn extensive attention, they remain puzzling. A crucial yet insufficiently explored factor in successful happiness pursuit is intergoal compatibility —the extent to which the pursuit of happiness aligns or conflicts with other important personal goals. For younger adults, the demands of age-related developmental tasks (e.g., educational and career aspirations) often create conflicts with the pursuit of happiness, diminishing its effectiveness. Conversely, in older adults, happiness becomes more prioritized and compatible with other important personal goals, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of pursuing happiness. A lesson we can learn from older adults is to pursue happiness in ways compatible with other important personal goals.
Why older people are happier and what we can learn from them | Psyche Ideas
Around the world, happiness tends to peak later in life. It has more to do with balancing priorities than elderly wisdom
Chasing life goals is a recipe for disaster – so try these tiny experiments instead
Whether its our careers, health or relationships, we often set the bar too high and end up feeling disappointed when it doesn’t work out. Try this new way of thinking … and you may just see some real results
Adult age differences in monetary decisions with real and hypothetical reward
Abstract Age differences in monetary decisions may emerge because younger and older adults perceive the value of outcomes differently. Yet, age‐differential effects of monetary rewards on decisions are not well understood. Most laboratory studies on aging and decision making have used scenarios in which rewards were merely hypothetical (decisions did not have any real consequences) or in which only small amounts of money were at stake. In the current study, we compared younger adults' (20–29 years) and older adults' (61–82 years) decisions in probabilistic choice problems with real or hypothetical rewards. Decision‐contingent rewards were in a typical range of previous studies (gains of up to ~4.25 USD) or substantially scaled up (gains of up to ~85 USD per participant). Reward type (real vs. hypothetical) affected decision quality, including value maximization, switching between options, and dominance violations (choices of an option that was inferior to another option in all respects). Decision quality was markedly better with real than hypothetical rewards in older adults and correlated with numeracy in both age groups. However, we found no evidence that reward type affected people's risk preferences. Overall, the findings portray a fairly positive picture regarding the use of hypothetical scenarios to assess preferences: With carefully prepared instructions, people from different age groups indicate preferences in hypothetical scenarios that match their decisions with real and much higher rewards. One advantage of using real rewards is that they help to reduce decision noise.
Mindful Judgment and Decision Making
A full range of psychological processes has been put into play to explain judgment and choice phenomena. Complementing work on attention, information integration, and learning, decision research over the past 10 years has also examined the effects of goals, mental representation, and memory processes. In addition to deliberative processes, automatic processes have gotten closer attention, and the emotions revolution has put affective processes on a footing equal to cognitive ones. Psychological process models provide natural predictions about individual differences and lifespan changes and integrate across judgment and decision making (JDM) phenomena. “Mindful” JDM research leverages our knowledge about psychological processes into causal explanations for important judgment and choice regularities, emphasizing the adaptive use of an abundance of processing alternatives. Such explanations supplement and support existing mathematical descriptions of phenomena such as loss aversion or hyperbolic discounting. Unlike such descriptions, they also provide entry points for interventions designed to help people overcome judgments or choices considered undesirable.
Life insurance, loss aversion, and temporal orientation: a field experiment and replication with young adults
Young individuals rarely seek information about life insurance—a product that offers long-term benefits that might not motivate a desire to act now. Framing life insurance messaging as a gain in the present (e.g., “ensure your loved ones are protected today”) is thought to motivate younger individuals to seek information about insurance policies. A field experiment with a large life insurance issuer and a pre-registered experiment reveal that loss aversion and temporal orientation frames influences whether individuals aged 25–49 years shop for life insurance. Specifically, the results suggest that the superiority of gain frames over loss frames requires positioning the benefits well in the future, despite the need to act now. This study thus also contextualizes the realities and practical difficulty of framing financial products in ways that might interest a potentially vulnerable population.
A psychologically rich life: Beyond happiness and meaning.
How your bank balance buys happiness: The importance of “cash on hand” to life satisfaction.
Why major life decisions should be approached with ‘epistemic humility’ | Psyche Videos
At a crossroads in life? No matter how much you deliberate, one unknowable remains: the person you will be on the other side
Does adolescence really last until age 32?
Those “turning points” in brain aging aren’t quite what you think
Philosophy Officer on Instagram: "I AM SO EMOTIONALLY MATURE I have massive problems with this term. Most people would say it means something along the lines of: the ability to understand, process, regulate or communicate emotions in a healthy way. Now the issue is that all of the terms you use to explain it leave so much room for interpretation the definition becomes almost vacuous. To understand an emotion means to know what caused it? To know the impact it has on you physiologically? To understand how it affects your cognition? To know how it affects others? Same goes with the term healthy, get far enough into a discussion on what it means to be healthy and people will start to disagree. Mental health? Physical? Communal? Spiritual? What’s more is that this term is thrown around in place of simple personality traits or individual quirks. Because someone is more emotional are they now less mature because they have an objectively more difficult time regulating them? Is the person with a dark sense of humour immature because he can’t hold in a laugh when everyone else finds the situation morbid or cruel? I think, to a great extent, it’s a bit of a shield or barrier of a term that absolves ourselves from taking responsibility for our behaviours. At the end of the day we know ourselves best, or at least better than most people. This means we best understand our emotions, how we regulate them, how we control them etc. We have this epistemic bias towards ourselves, since we simply know more about ourselves therefore we will often reason that others have less. Sorry I couldn’t polish off my ideas more I gotta run bye friends"
102K likes, 186 comments - the_philofficer on July 6, 2026: "I AM SO EMOTIONALLY MATURE I have massive problems with this term. Most people would say it means something along the lines of: the ability to understand, process, regulate or communicate emotions in a healthy way. Now the issue is that all of the terms you use to explain it leave so much room for interpretation the definition becomes almost vacuous. To understand an emotion means to know what caused it? To know the impact it has on you physiologically? To understand how it affects your cognition? To know how it affects others? Same goes with the term healthy, get far enough into a discussion on what it means to be healthy and people will start to disagree. Mental health? Physical? Communal? Spiritual? What’s more is that this term is thrown around in place of simple personality traits or individual quirks. Because someone is more emotional are they now less mature because they have an objectively more difficult time regulating them? Is the person with a dark sense of humour immature because he can’t hold in a laugh when everyone else finds the situation morbid or cruel? I think, to a great extent, it’s a bit of a shield or barrier of a term that absolves ourselves from taking responsibility for our behaviours. At the end of the day we know ourselves best, or at least better than most people. This means we best understand our emotions, how we regulate them, how we control them etc. We have this epistemic bias towards ourselves, since we simply know more about ourselves therefore we will often reason that others have less. Sorry I couldn’t polish off my ideas more I gotta run bye friends".
Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis
This volume introduces the statistical, methodological, and conceptual aspects of mediation analysis. Applications from health, social, and developmental psychology, sociology, communication, exercise science, and epidemiology are emphasized throughout. Single-mediator, multilevel, and longitudinal models are reviewed. The author's goal is to help the reader apply mediation analysis to their own data and understand its limitations. Each chapter features an overview, numerous worked examples, a summary, and exercises (with answers to the odd numbered questions). The accompanying CD contains outputs described in the book from SAS, SPSS, LISREL, EQS, MPLUS, and CALIS, and a program to simulate the model. The notation used is consistent with existing literature on mediation in psychology. The book opens with a review of the types of research questions the mediation model addresses. Part II describes the estimation of mediation effects including assumptions, statistical tests, and the construction of confidence limits. Advanced models including mediation in path analysis, longitudinal models, multilevel data, categorical variables, and mediation in the context of moderation are then described. The book closes with a discussion of the limits of mediation analysis, additional approaches to identifying mediating variables, and future directions. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis is intended for researchers and advanced students in health, social, clinical, and developmental psychology as well as communication, public health, nursing, epidemiology, and sociology. Some exposure to a graduate level research methods or statistics course is assumed. The overview of mediation analysis and the guidelines for conducting a mediation analysis will be appreciated by all readers.
Anthropomorphism in AI Companion Communities: Age, Gender, and Emotional Correlates
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into daily life, with millions now using AI chatbots built on Large Language Models (LLMs) for companionship. Both humanlike AI qualities and user predispositions to anthropomorphize relate to social consequences, such as increased trust, social health benefits, and psychological harms. Populations such as children, older adults, or those with mental health vulnerabilities may be particularly susceptible to anthropomorphism and its detriments, but mixed findings complicate the role of demographics. We used publicly available Reddit data from three popular AI companion subreddits to assess relationships between gender, age, anthropomorphism, and elicited emotions, to better understand how different people perceive and are affected by AI companions. We investigated three questions: How do age and gender relate to anthropomorphization of AI?, How does emotional expression relate to anthropomorphization?, and How do age and gender moderate emotion-anthropomorphization relationships? We found that adults and women anthropomorphize AI chatbots more than teens and men, and that positive emotional expression, particularly joy, is positively associated with anthropomorphization, while neutrality is negatively associated with anthropomorphism. Both relationships were stronger in adults than teens. Our findings suggest that the tendency to anthropomorphize may be more broadly distributed across age groups than previously expected, thereby prompting the reevaluation of existing digital safety norms.
Just You Wait, by Chris Shiflett
On turning 50: a personal story about luck, curiosity, disillusionment, and hope.
Social Verification Theory: A New Way to Conceptualize Validation, Dissonance, and Belonging
Academic Abstract In the present review, we propose a theory that seeks to recontextualize various existing theories as functions of people’s perceptions of their consistency with those around them. This theory posits that people seek social consistency for both epistemic and relational needs and that social inconsistency is both negative and aversive, similar to the experience of cognitive dissonance. We further posit that the aversive nature of perceiving social inconsistency leads people to engage in various behaviors to mitigate or avoid these inconsistencies. When these behaviors fail, however, people experience chronic social inconsistency, which, much like chronic rejection, is associated with physical and mental health and well-being outcomes. Finally, we describe how mitigation and avoidance of social inconsistency underlie many seemingly unrelated theories, and we provide directions for how future research may expand on this theory. Public Abstract In the present review, we propose that people find inconsistency with those around them to be an unpleasant experience, as it threatens people’s core need to belong. Because the threat of reduced belongingness evokes negative feelings, people are motivated to avoid inconsistency with others and to mitigate the negative feelings that are produced when it inevitably does arise. We outline several types of behaviors that can be implemented to avoid or mitigate these inconsistencies (e.g., validation, affirmation, distancing, etc.). When these behaviors cannot be implemented successfully, people experience chronic invalidation, which is associated with reduced physical and mental health and well-being outcomes. We discuss how invalidation may disproportionately affect individuals with minoritized identities. Furthermore, we discuss how belongingness could play a key role in radicalization into extremist groups.
