Special Issue:

Remembering Our Roots

The Gerontologist
Cite journal as: The Gerontologist Vol. 54, No. 1, 93100
doi:10.1093/geront/gnt099

The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Advance Access publication September 5, 2013

The Emergence of a Positive Gerontology:

From Disengagement to Social Involvement

1
Indiana University School of Social Work, Richmond.
Department of Gerontology, University of Massachusetts Boston.

*Address correspondence to Jan E.Mutchler, PhD, Department of Gerontology, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd.,
Boston, MA 02125. E-mail: jan.mutchler@umb.edu
Received January 4, 2013; Accepted July 24,2013
Decision Editor: Rachel Pruchno, PhD

The latter part of the 20th century was a period characterized by a fundamental transition in scholarship
on activity and the aging process. Theory emphasizing the inevitable decline of human capacity was
gradually replaced with concepts stressing positive,
multidimensional views of aging. In this article, we
highlight the key contributors and trace the origins
and overlapping themes of successful aging, productive aging, and civic engagement in later life: 3
examples of scholarship representing a positive
gerontology. Rowe and Kahns model of successful
aging highlights the interplay between social engagement with life, health, and functioning for a positive
aging experience. Productive aging, led by Robert
Butler, recognizes the previously underappreciated
participation of older adults in activities such as volunteering, paid work, and caregiving, and generates
interest in the individual and societal barriers to and
benefits of participation. Civic engagement in later
life raises public awareness about the need to involve
older adults in the community, creates opportunities
for participation, and generates further interest in
the mutual benefit of participation for community
beneficiaries and participants. Successful aging,
productive aging, and civic engagement represent
important contributions to the field of gerontology
Vol. 54, No. 1, 2014 93

through applications to policy, advocacy, and theory

development.
Key Words:Productive aging, Successful aging,
Civic engagement

Contemporary literature on the aging experience

is replete with themes of productivity and success.
Yet this positive tone was often lacking in the
roots of gerontological discourse. Early conceptual
models emphasize the inevitability of decline
and dependence in later life, with disengagement
theory offering perhaps the most familiar
example. Important theoretical changes in the
conceptualization of the aging process, coupled with
the publication of empirical work documenting the
vitality, strength, and contributions of older adults,
resulted in the emergence of multiple positive
perspectives onaging.
In this article, we highlight three interconnecting examples of a positive gerontology: successful
aging, productive aging, and civic engagement in
later life. These areas of research share the insight
that success, productivity, and engagement are,
in fact, features of a normal aging experience.

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

Kimberly J.Johnson, PhD, MSW,1 and Jan E.Mutchler, PhD*,2

Each stems from a theoretical understanding of

late life that incorporates its potential as a time of
contribution, adaptation, and success, yielding a
comprehensive understanding of the aging process
and of the older adult population. Our goal in this
piece is to review the key conceptual advancements
evident in these clusters that illustrate the creation and evolution of a positive gerontology. The
three examples presented here do not represent
an exhaustive review of positive views on aging
nor was a comprehensive review of each cluster
possible in the space allotted. Instead, we discuss
the contributions stemming from these areas of
inquiry and highlight the synergy and limitations
in this evolving scholarship.

Early literature on human aging stemmed from

the assumption of inevitable decline in later life, as
evident in both the medical and societal views of
aging (Butler, 1975; Nascher, 1914). Psychosocial
perspectives also focused on the degeneration associated with aging (Lupien & Wan, 2004; Miles,
1933). Building upon a commonly held assumption of decline as a normal feature of aging,
Cumming and Henry (1961) put forth disengagement theory as a systematic way of understanding
the social withdrawal accompanying age-related
personal declines. The central premise was that as
skills decline and remaining life is perceived to be
short, a mutual withdrawal from social obligations
occurs between an individual and society. Though
disengagement theory garnered much theoretical
attention (Achenbaum & Bengtson, 1994), early
critiques cited its lack of consideration of individual variability and its poor fit with the evidence
(Maddox, 1965).
The assumption of late-life decline as a normal
feature of aging was quickly challenged in academic and nonacademic circles. In the academic
literature, activity theory and continuity theory
offered compelling alternative views of later life,
arguing, respectively, that activity in later life yields
life satisfaction (Lemon, Bengtson, & Peterson,
1972) and that older adults seek continuity as they
adapt to changes in later life (Atchley, 1989). In the
policy and advocacy realms, participating in society
and contributing to their communities were identified as both a right and an obligation for older
adults. For example, a founding principle of the
AARP (2009), as espoused by Ethel Percy Andrus

Successful Aging, Productive Activity, and Civic

Engagement
The movement toward a more balanced
perspective on the experience of later lifea more
positive gerontologyredirected the imagination
of scholars toward ways in which older adults
maintain productive and engaged attachments to
roles and activities and focused attention on the
benefits resulting to participants and to others
as a result. The new sensibility is reflected by
the convergence of three overlapping clusters
of research: successful aging, productive aging,
and civic engagement. Each of these literatures
focuses on a somewhat distinctive aspect of a
positive gerontology, yet all directly or indirectly
reflect the significance of engagement with life and
participation in socially valued roles for personal
well-being.
References to successful aging are scattered
along the progression of theoretical perspectives in
gerontology, albeit with varied meanings attached.
An early definition offered by Havighurst (1961)

94

The Gerontologist

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

Early Approaches to Understanding the

Aging Process

in 1958, is To encourage older people To serve,

not to be served. Asimilar theme is reflected in
the report of the 1961 White House Conference
on Aging, which cited seeking out opportunities
to play meaningful social roles as an obligation
of older adults, and highlighted as a fundamental
right for older Americans the right to be useful
through participation in civic affairs, activities,
and employment (U.S. Senate Special Committee
on Aging, 1961).
These correctivesin academic, policy, and advocacy settingsreflected a large-scale movement
toward a positive gerontology that continues today.
Relinquishing the assumption of decline led to a
focus on the ways in which health and well-being
were maintained well into later life, as a common
feature of normal aging. Adaptive processes, based
in activity and social participation, were recognized
as key. As an early example, Palmore (1979) found
that participating in group activities and physical
exercise contributed to higher levels of happiness
and good health and to increased probability of
survival to age 75. Psychological emphases shifted
to variability in the aging process and the adaptive
capacity of individuals (Neugarten, 1973; Ryff,
1982). Gradually, biomedical research recognized
the distinction between the process of aging and
the progression of disease and disability (Rowe &
Kahn, 1987; Vaillant & Mukamal, 2001).

Vol. 54, No. 1, 2014 95

successfully (Hsu & Jones, 2012; Ng etal., 2011;

Wahl etal., 2013). Poon and colleagues Healthy
& Successful Aging project represents an ongoing effort to remedy some of the definitional and
theoretical ambiguity within the successful aging
literature while simultaneously building a knowledge base with practical implications for promoting health in later life (Martin, Kelly, Kahana,
Kahana, & Poon, 2012).
The development of productive aging as a topic
of investigation stemmed jointly from aging advocacy and from continuity theory (Bass & Caro,
2001). Increased longevity, rising human capital,
and changing expectations altered the scholarly discourse on aging in the 1980s; however, social lag in
attitudes about late life and older people persisted,
and ageist stereotypes limited the opportunities
available to older adults in society (Palmore, 2005).
By the end of the decade, Butler (1989) suggested
that the pervasiveness and persistence of ageism
should be actively treated as a disease. One of the
public remedies he suggested is the active promotion
of productive aging, including paid work as well as
many socially valued activities that are unpaid.
The literature describes numerous activities
as evidence of productive aging, including paid
and unpaid work, assistance to others, and
caregiving. Empirical findings show continuity
in unpaid productive activities between midlife
and the postretirement years, with high rates of
participation well into later life (Burr, Mutchler, &
Caro, 2007; Herzog, Kahn, Morgan, Jackson, &
Antonucci, 1989; Hinterlong, 2008). Participation
is linked to many aspects of social and human
capital, including health, social relationships, and
education (Mutchler, Burr, & Caro, 2003). The
productive aging literature underscores the multiple
ways people contribute to their own health, to
their families and communities, and to society
as they age (Butler & Gleason, 1985) through
participating in these activities. For example, one
stream of research finds benefits for participants in
productive activities through avoidance of disease
and death (Burr, Tavares, & Mutchler, 2011; Glass,
Mendes de Leon, Marottoli, & Berkman, 1999),
although neutral or negative health consequences
have been documented elsewhere, especially
for productive activities with potential for high
burden such as caregiving for family members with
chronic illness (Schulz, Visintainer, & Williamson,
1990), caring for grandchildren (Musil et al.,
2010), or employment in a physically demanding
job (Fletcher, Sindelar, & Yamaguchi, 2011).

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

identified successful aging as the experience of

joy, happiness, and satisfaction in later life. Both
disengagement and activity theory referred to successful aging, though each offered polar opposite
views on the means of achieving success in later life
(Havighurst, 1961; Maddox, 1965). Withdrawal
from social life was viewed as normative and a
sign of successful aging according to disengagement theory, whereas activity theory promoted
continued action as evidence of successful aging.
Neugartens (1972) conceptualization of successful
aging, discussed in her Kleemeier Award Lecture,
highlights life satisfaction as a key indicator of
successful aging; her discussion draws attention to
continuity in personality characteristics as adults
age and references a high level of diversity in the
aging process.
Contemporary usage of the term successful
aging is frequently aligned with ideas drawn
from two multidimensional approaches: selective optimization with compensation (SOC) and
Rowe and Kahns work on usual and successful aging. Working from a perspective that
incorporates continuity theory and peoples adaptive capacity, Baltes and Baltes (1990) developed
the SOC model of successful aging. According to
SOC, people use strategies of selection, optimization, and compensation to adjust expectations and
behavior with advancing age, thereby optimizing self-efficacy and personal satisfaction while
compensating for age-related changes. Freund
and Baltes (1998) show a correlation between
those older adults who report utilizing the strategies of SOC and subjective measures of successful agingthe absence of feeling lonely, positive
affect, and enhanced well-being. Rowe and Kahns
(1987, 1997, 1998) framework defines successful aging as occurring at the intersection of good
health, high physical and cognitive functioning,
and active involvement in social activities. Agoal
of the MacArthur Studies on Successful Aging is
identification of the multiple biological, cognitive,
physical, and psychosocial factors influencing the
variation that leads some adults to remain ambulatory and active, whereas others experience functional limitations and inactivity. Distinguishing
between usual and successful aging makes
clear that aging successfully is often not achieved;
yet Rowe and Kahns framework suggests that positive aging is achievable by many adults through
modifiable factors, including health behaviors and
social participation. Asubstantial literature draws
on the principles offered in these models of aging

social networks and cognitive stimulation, as well

as gains realized by communities via the contributions of civically engaged older participants
(Hinterlong & Williamson, 2006/2007; MorrowHowell, 2011). In this respect, the literature on
civic engagement in later life integrates insights
from productive aging, concerning the bases of
and barriers to participation in activities, with
conceptual themes from successful aging, about
the benefits to personal well-being associated with
public participation.
Within the field of gerontology, civic engagement shares with successful aging and productive
aging a strong interpenetration of scholarship,
policy, and practice. Numerous governmental,
nonprofit, and academic organizations have created programs and policy statements in support
of civic engagement among seniors, especially volunteering (ONeill, Wilson, & Morrow-Howell,
2011). Freedmans (1997) call for seniors to save
civil society through volunteering and community
engagement stems from both his acknowledgment
of seniors human capital resources and his recognition of their potential to benefit communities and
organizations. His creation of Civic Ventures (now
Encore.org) focuses on mobilizing baby boomers
and seniors to make contributions to their communities by transitioning to purpose-driven careers.
This emphasis on purposeful work in later life,
such as jobs in education and public service, highlights an important distinction between themes of
civic engagement and themes of productive aging,
which promotes late-life work as beneficial activity
without specifying its content.
Synthesis and Critique
The literatures on successful aging, productive
aging, and civic engagement offer a shared
positive view of the potential embedded in later
life. Each recognizes that later life can be a time
of engagement, contribution, and well-being, and
each cluster of literature has directed attention
to determining how frequently this potential is
realized. All three perspectives build to some
extent on activity theory, which posits that activity
promotes life satisfaction, and continuity theory,
which poses that although individuals adapt to
their own aging by adjusting the duration, mode,
or distribution of activities, the outlines of activity
maintain relatively stable over the lifecourse
(Atchley, 1989; Lemon, Bengtson, & Peterson,
1972). Models have been developed and tested

96

The Gerontologist

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

The productive activity framework has been

highly successful in identifying the social, cultural,
and political factors that shape the activity choices
of older adults having implications for their health
and well-being. Bass and Caros (2001) framework
of productive aging embraces this multidisciplinary,
dynamic perspective and highlights the influence of
institutional factors. Their framework suggests that
to the extent activity declines with age, such changes
are associated with more than simply intrinsic motivations and preferences. Instead, institutional and
societal influencessuch as devaluation of elders
contributions, excluding older participants from
many roles, and the narrow range of activities
considered productiveall factor into our understandings of participation. Activity choices could be
modified through organizational and public policies formulated to increase the quality and quantity
of productive activities; in turn, greater opportunity could positively influence public perception
(Hinterlong, 2008; Morris & Bass, 1988).
Civic engagement involves action on the part
of an individual, taken in support of others or for
the common good (Adler & Goggin, 2005). Yet the
research literature does not make clear whether
civic engagement represents a unique cluster
of ideas or, instead, a particular type of productive activity (Greenfield, 2011). A broad definition is offered in the Older Americans Act, where
civic engagement is defined as an individual
or collective action designed to address a public
concern or an unmet human, educational, health
care, environmental, or public safety need (U.S.
Administration on Aging, 2006). The scholarly
origins of civic engagement highlight activities that
are civic in nature, such as voting, volunteering, or
involvement in voluntary associations (Adler &
Goggin, 2005), yet in much empirical work, the
term is used interchangeably with volunteering
(Martinson & Minkler, 2006; Morrow-Howell,
2010). Our discussion acknowledges this ambiguity, yet treats civic engagement as its own area
of research given the rapid growth of a discrete
literature on civic engagement (van den Bogaard,
Henkens, & Kalmijn, 2013) much of which
acknowledges little or no intellectual connection
with productive or successfulaging.
In the gerontological literature, conceptualization and language surrounding civic engagement
share features with both productive and successful
aging. The literature on civic engagement focuses
on the dual benefits of activity: personal benefits
realized by the participant, such as strengthened

Vol. 54, No. 1, 2014 97

subjective measures, objective measures, or a combination of objective and subjective indicators

of successful aging have been debated with little
resolution (Phelan, Anderson, Lacroix, & Larson,
2004; Pruchno, Wilson-Genderson, & Cartwright,
2010; Reichstadt, Sengupta, Depp, Palinkas, &
Jeste, 2010; Strawbridge, Wallhagen, & Cohen,
2002). Despite agreement that productive activity includes that which is valued in society and
meaningful to the individual, a lack of consensus
on the precise activities defined as productive is a
limitation to further theoretical development on
productive aging (Bass & Caro, 2001; Sherraden,
Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong, & Rozario, 2001).
Morgan (1986) includes housework as productive
activity, whereas Bass and Caro (2001) exclude it,
for example. Greater consensus might be expected
regarding the definition of civic engagement, given
its more narrow scope. Yet in practice, the literature on civic engagement has struggled to maintain
its definitional focus as well, frequently including not only volunteering and civic participation
but also caregiving, paid work, informal helping,
and other activities that have conventionally been
deemed productive (Greenfield, 2011; van den
Bogaard etal., 2013).
Future Directions
Scholarship at the intersection of aging and social
activity has shifted from assuming withdrawal
and decline to emphasizing a positive view of
seniors contributions and potential. Advocates
for older adults have long called attention to the
contributions seniors make to their families and
communities. Scholars have documented these
contributions and secured evidence that productive
behavior may benefit older participants themselves.
Subsequent conceptual development advanced
ideas about individual, societal, and policy factors
leading to participation in productive activity while
expanding scholarly thought on the interconnection
of health, physical and mental functioning, and
social engagement in life. Scholarship on civic
engagement in later life brings renewed interest
in the role of older adults in civil society and the
mutual benefits resulting from participation. As
promoted by successful aging models, productive
activities and civic engagement are now widely
embraced as potential vehicles for securing health
and well-being.
Together, these streams of work invite ample
future directions for scholarship. For example, a

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

to understand the factors that shape variability in

the extent to which this positive aging experience
is realized across individuals (Hinterlong, 2008;
Romo etal., 2012); as well, literature in each cluster
of work examines the implications of activity and
engagement for the participants well-being (Glass
et al., 1999; Rebok et al., 2011; Strawbridge,
Wallhagen, & Cohen, 2002). Indeed, the three
converge most clearly when directed toward
understanding well-being in later life. Rowe and
Kahns (1998) version of successful aging defines
engagement in life as an essential component of
aging successfully and names participation in
productive activity as one of its elements. Civic
engagementactivity undertaken toward the
common good by older adultsis a public form
of productive activity (Freedman, 1997) and, as
such, would be expected to signal successful aging.
Indeed, scholarship in all three areas suggests that
engagement in productive activities often promotes
positive well-being; yet circumstances under which
engagement yields neutral or negative impacts on
well-being are a focus of continued investigation
(Carlson etal., 2008; Matz-Costa, Besen, James, &
Pitt-Catsouphes, 2012).
The perspectives diverge in the relative emphasis placed on structural and environmental issues
shaping participation and well-being. Indeed, Rowe
and Kahns work has been widely critiqued for its
lack of attention to structural issues faced by aging
individuals (Minkler & Fadem, 2002; Romo etal.,
2012). Yet due in part to the advocacy and policy
roots of productive aging and civic engagement,
structural concerns are well addressed in these perspectives (Bass & Caro, 2001; ONeill, Wilson, &
Morrow-Howell, 2011). Advancing institutional
support for productive activities and for civic
engagement is justified not only on the basis of
the larger good but also as a means of promoting
opportunities for older adults to age successfully
(Morrow-Howell & Freedman, 2006/2007).
Consensus and precision around fundamental
issues of definition and measurement are required
in all three areas of investigation, if progress is to
be made in understanding the pathways to successful aging, and the broader significance of participating in activities that may be described as
productive. The term successful aging has multiple uses in the literaturesometimes describing the characteristics of a satisfying life at older
ages, and on other occasions referring to the process by which individuals can optimize well-being
in later life (Martin et al., 2012). The merits of

work may assist us in identifying participants in

need of support or intervention before a given
activity, such as caregiving, becomes harmful to
health and limits activity in other beneficial areas.
Causal models that specify the selective processes
at work in drawing people into different types of
activities, resulting in differential consequences
for participation, will also be needed.
A welcomed direction for expanded research
involves a specification of the aspects of wellbeing having the most potential to be shaped by
participation in productive or civically engaged
activities. Much of the literature focuses on broad
well-being constructs such as life satisfaction or
self-rated health. Stronger evidence about the
promise and potential of participation in civically
engaged or productive activities will be gained
through tighter investigation of outcomes, such
as measured blood pressure (Burr, Tavares, &
Mutchler, 2011), or other specific health outcomes
that are modifiable within relatively narrow time
frames. One recent set of investigations addresses
many of these issues within the context of a
public health intervention. Experience Corps
is a community-based model that prospectively
explores the impact of volunteering on health
outcomes (Rebok etal., 2011). This NIH-funded
intervention study recruits primarily low income,
African American women for structured volunteer
activities within the Baltimore public schools.
Results provide strong evidence of the benefits of
volunteering for specific health outcomes such as
executive function and memory (Carlson et al.,
2008); as well, the study offers an enhanced
understanding of the mechanisms linking engage
ment to health. Additional interventions such as
this are needed to establish whether increasing the
number and quality of valued social roles, such
as volunteering, may be an effective means of
promoting successful agingand what aspects of
success are most amendable to intervention.
Finally, future work is needed to identify ways
in which productive and civically engaged opportunities, and their benefits, may be made more
accessible to all older adults who wish to participate. Each perspective has received criticism for
stigmatizing people whose core activities do not
mesh easily with these labels (Holstein, 1993;
Martinson & Minkler, 2006; Minkler & Fadem,
2002). Recent conceptualizations may help to
dissipate these critiques. Morrow-Howell and
Freedman (2006/2007) assert that civic engagement has transitioned away from advocating for

98

The Gerontologist

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

sharpened focus on the aspects of productive or

civically engaged activity that generate well-being
would be beneficial. What is the value added
by engaging in productive activities? Like many
other activity choices, productive activity and civic
engagement may promote social participation,
physical activity, and intellectual stimulation. For
example, an older adult volunteering at a local hospital may form friendships with other volunteers
while simultaneously gaining cognitive and physical stimulation from transporting patients from
one area of the hospital to another. Individuals
participating in activities defined as productive or
civically engaged may primarily benefit from them
in these waysjust as they might by joining an
exercise class or some leisure activity. Yet unpaid
productive and civically engaged activities are
defined by their sense of purpose and contribution
to the well-being of others. Activities like volunteering may doubly benefit the participant through
providing a sense of meaning and purpose. Asignificant obstacle to addressing these questions is
identifying data and methods that allow the causal
processes linking activity and well-being to be disentangled. Yet to sufficiently understand the value
of productive activity for successful aging, these
questions must be pursued.
Another future direction for research is the
question of which activities may yield the most positive outcomes, and in what dose. Participation
in productive activities has been linked with health
outcomes, but the evidence is uneven: not all
activities have the same benefit for older individuals (Matz-Costa et al., 2012). Productive activities that are flexibly structured and taken on by
choice, such as volunteering, may have more positive implications for well-being than productive
activities that are more rigidly structured, or that
are more obligatory. Some productive and valued
activities can be especially stressful or time consumingcaregiving for an adult with disability or
caring full time for a grandchild, for example
and these may be associated with more negative
health outcomes. The dose or level of participation, even in discretionary activities such as volunteering, is also relevant. Understanding how
much participation maximizes benefit, and how
much is instead burdensome to the participant,
is a challenging but valued goal. Stronger theoretical development establishing the mechanisms
linking activity (productive activity, civic engagement) to well-being (successful aging) is necessary
to advance our understanding in this area. Future

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of Natalie Leland,
Jeff Burr, and the reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper.

References
AARP. (2009). AARP history. Retrieved from http://www.aarp.org/aboutaarp/info-2009/History.html
Achenbaum, W. A., & Bengtson, V. L. (1994). Re-engaging the disengagement theory of aging: On the history and assessment of theory development in gerontology. The Gerontologist, 34, 756763. doi:10.1093/
geront/34.6.756
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by civic engagement? Journal of Transformative Education, 3, 236253.
doi:10.1177/1541344605276792
Atchley, R. C. (1989). A continuity theory of normal aging. The
Gerontologist, 29, 183190. doi:10.1093/geront/29.2.183
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation.
In P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes (Eds.), Successful aging: Perspectives
from the behavioral sciences (pp. 134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511665684.003
Bass, S. A., & Caro, F. G. (2001). Productive aging: Aconceptual framework. In N. Morrow-Howell, J. Hinterlong, & M. Sherraden (Eds.),
Productive aging: Concepts and challenges (pp. 3780). Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Burr, J. A., Mutchler, J. E., & Caro, F. G. (2007). Productive activity clusters among middle-aged and older adults: Intersecting forms and time
commitments. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 62, S267S275.
doi:10.1093/geronb/62.4.S267
Burr, J. A., Tavares, J., & Mutchler, J. (2011). Volunteering and hypertension risk in later life. Journal of Aging and Health, 23, 4150.
doi:10.1177/0898264310388272

Vol. 54, No. 1, 2014 99

Butler, R. N. (1975). Why survive? Being old in America. New York:

Harper & Row.
Butler, R. N. (1989). Dispelling ageism: The cross-cutting intervention.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 503,
138147. doi:10.1177/0002716289503001011
Butler, R. N., & Gleason, H. P. (1985). Productive aging: Enhancing vitality in later life. New York: Springer.
Carlson, M. C., Saczynski, J. S., Rebok, G. W., Seeman, T., Glass, T. A.,
McGill, S., etal. (2008). Exploring the effects of an everyday activity
program on executive function and memory in older adults: Experience
Corps. The Gerontologist, 48, 793801. doi:10.1093/geront/48.6.793
Cumming, E., & Henry, W. E. (1961). Growing old: The process of disengagement. New York: Basic Books.
Dabelko-Schoeny, H., Anderson, K. A., & Spinks, K. (2010). Civic engagement for older adults with functional limitations: Piloting an intervention for adult day health participants. The Gerontologist, 50, 694701.
doi:10.1093/geront/gnq019
Fletcher, J. M., Sindelar, J. L., & Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Cumulative effects
of job characteristics on health. Health Economics, 20, 553570.
doi:10.1002/hec.1616
Freedman, M. (1997). Towards civic renewal: How senior citizens could
save civil society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 28, 243263.
doi:10.1300/J083v28n03_08
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization, and compensation as strategies of life management: Correlations with subjective indicators of successful aging. Psychology and Aging, 13, 531543.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.5
Glass, T. A., Mendes de Leon, C., Marottoli, R. A., & Berkman, L. F.
(1999). Population based study of social and productive activities
as predictors of survival among elderly Americans. British Medical
Journal, 319, 478491. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7208.478
Greenfield, E. A. (2011). Identifying the boundaries and horizons of the
concept of civic engagement for the field of aging. In G. ONeill &
S. F. Wilson (Eds.), Civic engagement in an older America (pp. 714).
Washington, DC: Gerontological Society of America.
Havighurst, R. J. (1961). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 1, 813.
doi:10.1093/geront/1.1.8
Herzog, A. R., Kahn, R. L., Morgan, J. N., Jackson, J. S.,& Antonucci, T. C.
(1989). Age differences in productive activities. Journal of Gerontology:
Social Sciences, 44, S129S138. doi:10.1093/geronj/44.4.S129
Hinterlong, J. E. (2008). Productive engagement among older Americans:
Prevalence, patterns, and implications for public policy. Journal of Aging
& Social Policy, 20, 141164. doi:10.1080/08959420801977491
Hinterlong, J. E., & Williamson, A. (2006/2007). The effects of civic
engagement of current and future cohorts of older adults. Generations,
30, 1017.
Holstein, M. (1993). Productive aging: A feminist critique. Journal of
Aging & Social Policy, 4, 1734. doi:10.1300/J031v04n03_04
Hsu, H. C., & Jones, B. L. (2012). Multiple trajectories of successful
aging of older and younger cohorts. The Gerontologist, 52, 843856.
doi:10.1093/geront/gns005
Lemon, B. W., Bengtson, V. L., & Peterson, J. A. (1972). An exploration of
the activity theory of aging: Activity types and life satisfaction among
in-movers to a retirement community. Journal of Gerontology, 27,
511523. doi:10.1093/geronj/27.4.511
Lupien, J. S., & Wan, N. (2004). Successful aging: From cell to self.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences,
359, 14131426. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1516
Maddox, G. L. (1965). Fact and artifact: Evidence bearing on disengagement theory from the Duke Geriatrics Project. Human Development,
8, 117130. doi:10.1159/000270296
Martin, P., Kelly, N., Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & Poon, L. W. (2012).
Paper 1: Defining successful aging: A tangible or elusive concept?
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Healthy & Successful Aging
Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://healthyandsuccessfulaging.word
press.com/2012/11/12/paper-1-defining-successful-aging-a-tangibleor-elusive-concept/
Martinson, M., & Minkler, M. (2006). Civic engagement and older adults:
Acritical perspective. The Gerontologist, 46, 318324. doi:10.1093/
geront/46.3.318
Matz-Costa, C., Besen, E., James, J. B., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2012).
Differential impact of multiple levels of productive activity engagement
on psychological well-being in middle and later life. The Gerontologist.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/geront/gns148
Miles, W. R. (1933). Age and human ability. Psychological Review, 40,
99123. doi:10.1037/h0075341

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

the right of older people to participate in civic life,

to adapting available modes of engagement so as
to neither exclude nor impose upon individuals.
For instance, programmatic attempts to involve
people with functional limitations have been introduced in community settings (Dabelko-Schoeny,
Anderson, & Spinks, 2010). An important direction for future work is devising new opportunities
for engagement and productive activity, and further limiting barriers to participation (Sherraden
etal., 2001).
The three interconnecting areas of research discussed in this paper direct our attention to positive
locations within the matrix of late-life outcomes.
Each area of study has struggled to define those
locations in consistent and measurable ways,
together offering a broad mix of behavior that may
be understood as productive or engaged, and
outcomes that may be deemed as evidence of success or well-being. Yet the goal of identifying
activitiesmodifiable allocations of timethat
have the potential to not only enhance a participants likelihood of aging successfully but also
benefit others in the process is too alluring to dismiss. The development of a positive gerontology
signaled by these three intersecting approaches
offers a welcome reminder of the potential embedded within aging societies.

Pruchno, R. A., Wilson-Genderson, M., & Cartwright, F. (2010). A twofactor model of successful aging. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 65, P671P679. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq051.
Rebok, G. W., Carlson, M. C., Barron, J. S., Frick, K. D., McGill, S., Parisi,
J. M., et al. (2011). Experience Corps: A civic engagement-based
public health intervention in the public schools. In P. E. Hartman-Stein
& A. LaRue (Eds.), Enhancing cognitive fitness in adults (pp. 469
487). New York: Springer.
Reichstadt, J., Sengupta, G., Depp, C. A., Palinkas, L. A., & Jeste, D. V.
(2010). Older adults perspectives on successful aging: Qualitative
interviews. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18, 567575.
doi:10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181e040bb
Romo, R. D., Wallhagen, M. I., Yourman, L., Yeung, C. C., Eng, C., Micco,
G., etal. (2012). Perceptions of successful aging among diverse elders
with late-life disability. The Gerontologist. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/geront/gns160
Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: Usual and successful.
Science, 237, 143149. doi:10.1126/science.3299702
Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. The Gerontologist,
37, 433440. doi:10.1093/geront/37.4.433
Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1998). Successful aging. New York: Pantheon.
Ryff, C. D. (1982). Successful aging: A developmental approach. The
Gerontologist, 22, 209214. doi:10.1093/geront/22.2.209
Schulz, R., Visintainer, P., & Williamson, G. M. (1990). Psychiatric and
physical morbidity effects of caregiving. Journal of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, 45, P181P191. doi:10.1093/geronj/45.5.P181
Sherraden, M., Morrow-Howell, N., Hinterlong, J., & Rozario, P. (2001).
Productive aging: Theoretical choices and directions. In N. MorrowHowell, J. Hinterlong, & M. Sherraden (Eds.), Productive aging:
Concepts and challenges (pp. 285311). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Strawbridge, W. J., Wallhagen, M. I., & Cohen, R. D. (2002). Successful
aging and well-being self-rated compared with Rowe and Kahn. The
Gerontologist, 42, 727733. doi:10.1093/geront/42.6.727
U.S. Administration on Aging. (2006). H.R. 6197109th Congress: Older
Americans Act Amendments of 2006. Retrieved from http://www.aoa.
gov/AoA_programs/OAA/oaa.aspx
U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. (1961). The 1961 White House
Conference on Aging, Basic Policy Statements and Recommendations.
Retrieved from http://www.aging.senate.gov/reports/rpt261.pdf
Vaillant, G. E., & Mukamal, K. (2001). Successful aging. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 158, 839847. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.6.839
Van den Bogaard, L., Henkens, K., & Kalmijn, M. (2013). So now what?
Effects of retirement on civic engagement. Ageing & Society. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1017/S0144686X13000019
Wahl, H.-W., Heyl, V., Drapaniotis, P. M., Hrmann, K., Jonas, J. B.,
Plinkert, P. K., et al. (2013). Severe vision and hearing impairment
and successful aging: A multidimensional view. The Gerontologist.
doi:10.1093/geront/gnt013

100

The Gerontologist

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 29, 2015

Minkler, M., & Fadem, P. (2002). Successful aging: A disability perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12, 229235.
doi:10.1177/104420730201200402
Morgan, J. (1986). Unpaid productive activity over the life course. In
Committee on an Aging Society (Ed.), Productive roles in an older society (pp. 73109). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Morris, R., & Bass, S. A. (1988). Retirement reconsidered: Economic and
social roles for older people. New York: Springer.
Morrow-Howell, N. (2010). Volunteering in later life: Research frontiers.
Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 65, S461S469. doi:10.1093/
geronb/gbq024.
Morrow-Howell, N. (2011). Outcomes of civic engagement for older
adults. In G. ONeill & S. F. Wilson (Eds.), Civic engagement in an
older America (pp. 125131). Washington, DC: Gerontological Society
of America.
Morrow-Howell, N., & Freedman, M. (2006/2007). Introduction:
Bringing civic engagement into sharper focus. Generations, 30, 69.
Musil, CC., Gordon, N. L., Warner, C. B., Zauszniewski, J. A., Standing, T.,
& Wykle, M. (2010). Grandmothers and caregiving to grandchildren:
Continuity, change, and outcomes over 24months. The Gerontologist,
51, 86100. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq061
Mutchler, J. E., Burr, J. A., & Caro, F. G. (2003). From paid worker to volunteer: Leaving the paid workforce and volunteering in later life. Social
Forces, 81, 12671293. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0067
Nascher, I. L. (1914). Geriatrics: The diseases of old age and their
treatment, including physiological old age, home and institutional
care, and medico-legal relations. Philadelphia: P. Blakistons Son &
Company.
Neugarten, B. L. (1972). Personality and the aging process. The
Gerontologist, 12, 915. doi:10.1093/geront/12.1_Part_1.9
Neugarten, B. L. (1973). Patterns of aging: Past, present, and future. The
Social Service Review, 47, 571580. doi:10.1086/643045
Ng, S. H., Cheung, C. K., Chong, A. M., Woo, J., Kwan, A. Y., & Lai, S.
(2011). Aging well socially through engagement with life: Adapting
Rowe and Kahns model of successful aging to Chinese cultural context. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 73,
313330. doi:10.2190/AG.73.4.c
ONeill, G., Wilson, S. F., & Morrow-Howell, N. (2011). The civic enterprise: Advancing civic engagement opportunities in later life. In G.
ONeill & S. F. Wilson (Eds.), Civic engagement in an older America
(pp. 15). Washington, DC: Gerontological Society of America.
Palmore, E. B. (1979). Predictors of successful aging. The Gerontologist,
19, 427431. doi:10.1093/geront/19.5_Part_1.427
Palmore, E. B. (2005). Three decades of research on ageism. Generations,
29, 8790.
Phelan, E. A., Anderson, L. A., Lacroix, A. Z., & Larson, E. B. (2004).
Older adults views of successful agingHow do they compare with
researchers definitions? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,
52, 211216. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52056.x