American older adults in COVID-19 Times:Vulnerability types, aging attitudes and emotional responses

1. Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) became a global pandemic with substantial mental health impacts besides direct threats to individuals’ physical health (Pfefferbaum and North, 2020). Existing research reveals that negative emotionality was rising in many countries (Garrett, 2020). Individuals faced challenges to emotional well-being with the unease of pandemic threats, changes in routine, worries about financial loss, and loneliness from proposed distancing policies (Pfefferbaum and North, 2020). Whereas older adults generally have higher levels of overall emotional well-being (Carstensen et al., 2020), they might experience heightened negative emotions when faced with acute stresses such as the SARS outbreak (Lau et al., 2008). In the hard-hit United States, about one-half of the older adults reported stresses related to the disease, and a quarter of them developed passive mental health responses during the pandemic (Koma et al., 2020). According to the Strength and Vulnerability Integration Model (Charles, 2010), older adults have increased strengths in the successful use of attentional strategies, appraisals, and behaviors to regulate emotional experiences and vulnerability in modulating the high and sustained levels of physiological arousal. In the COVID-19 situation where stress is prolonged and inescapable, avoiding distress motion regulation skills is difficult. As emotions have a great potential in shaping life satisfaction and coping strategies (Fredrickson and Losada, 2005), a growing body of researches found impacts from physical inactivity, living alone, and perceived stresses were associate with emotional responses (Carstensen et al., 2020; Fingerman et al., 2021). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, a few studies examined emotional well-being with types of vulnerability.

Vulnerability refers to the inability of individuals to withstand the multiple effects of a hostile environment (Ahmad et al., 2020). The elderly, as a specific vulnerable group, has attracted substantial attention for their vulnerabilities relative to physical health indicators, cognition, and social orientation (Cesari et al., 2017; Morrow-Howell et al., 2020). Chambers proposes that vulnerability has two sides: an external side of risk, shock, and stress to which individuals are subjects. Also, an internal side means a lack of means to cope without damaging loss (Chambers, 2006). In the previous study, the vulnerability was assessed with the outcomes of a set of risks (Schröder-Butterfill and Marianti, 2006), with expressions primarily on trauma exposure, delayed healthcare use, financial hardships, and disrupted routine. As noted by the Sensitive and Resilience model (Charney, 2004), these dimensions face the most frequent disturbances during an upheaval, while older adults present prepositioning frailties on them (Morrow-Howell et al., 2020). However, the capability of older adults to withstand exposures and threats is highly variable, suggesting the vulnerability across older adults may differ qualitatively. One systematic review reveals that older adults with less physiological reserves were particularly vulnerable to physiologic changes, and those in disadvantaged social status were more sensitive to resource loss (Bayraktar and Dal Yilmaz, 2018). Personal protection, practical preparedness, and social preparedness combined to determine how an older adult becomes vulnerable to adverse events (Pérez-Galarce et al., 2017). However, we have limited evidence to date to understand the vulnerability across older adults in COVID-19 scenarios. Thus, this study examines the latent types of vulnerability among older adults in the COVID-19 context.

Previous studies proposed that vulnerabilities during adverse events might arouse negative responses (Lau et al., 2008; Knepple Carney et al., 2021), despite the emotional well-being is relatively stable and echoes affective profile (Garcia et al., 2014). However, prior researches reached no consensus regarding the association between vulnerability and positive emotional responses. In some studies, positive emotions decreased when the person had more or severer vulnerabilities (Thomas and Hasher, 2006; Ebner and Johnson, 2010). However, other studies found no significant reduction in positive emotions despite older adults were conceived as vulnerable (Carstensen and Mikels, 2005; Fuller and Huseth-Zosel, 2021). Differences in the interpretation of vulnerability, stress types, and cultures contributed to this inconsistency. As the Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotion reveals (Lazarus, 1991), positive emotional responses during an adverse event link with factual vulnerabilities and ruminations afterward. In unintentional situations, positive internal schema and positive emotions among older adults would sustain when they attributed vulnerabilities to external factors or conceived them as a shared risk for the whole society. Alternatively, considering the vulnerabilities as personal inability may lead to self-depreciation and expel positive emotions. During the COVID-19, how older adults conceive vulnerabilities may be differential, as risks from the pandemic are commonly shared by nearly all communities and groups (Calderón-Larrañaga et al., 2020). Thus, in the current study, we examine the relationships of vulnerabilities with both positive and negative emotional responses, thereby evaluating the emotional well-being of older adults amidst COVID-19 threats.

Moreover, aging attitude as a cognitive pattern might moderate the relationship between vulnerability and emotional responses. In line with the Cognitive Vulnerability-Stress Model (Beck, 2002), a sizable of studies concurred that older adults with positive aging attitudes would have better subjective well-being during adverse events (Reichstadt et al., 2007; Suh et al., 2012). When confronted with factual vulnerabilities, positive aging attitudes improve emotional well-being via emotional and informational processing. On the one hand, self-esteem from a sense of self-identity serves as a shield against initial negative reactions, which is helpful to restrain stress-diathesis and have successful use of emotion regulation strategies (Hooley and Gotlib, 2000). On the other hand, positive attitudes towards aging offer older persons better preparedness to capitalize on the strengths of aging by effectively selecting information that increases positive effects (Ayalon, 2020). Also, individuals holding positive views on aging are less likely to consider older adults’ vulnerabilities as social discrimination, thus conducting negative ruminations to a lesser extent. However, a few studies explored the differences between vulnerability types in the relationship of vulnerability, aging attitudes, and emotional well-being to our knowledge. Theoretically, older adults with fewer or mild vulnerabilities may have greater self-esteem together with confidence to overcome the pandemic after comparing with their severely damaged counterparts. Such a sense of capability is intrinsically inherent with positive aging attitudes and might amplify their protective effects on emotional responses (Chen et al., 2018). By contrast, another study reveals that positive aging attitudes are of utmost importance for older adults whose substantial vulnerabilities had threatened the pre-existing positive cognitions (Bellingtier and Neupert, 2018). Establishing the interaction of vulnerability and aging attitudes is a necessary step in proposing intervention strategies regarding emotional well-being.

This study investigates the latent vulnerability types in American older adults in the face of COVID-19 threats and examines the relationships between vulnerability type, aging attitudes, and emotional responses. Our first hypothesis concerns the latent vulnerability types with investigations on pandemic exposure, healthcare use, financial resilience, and routine sustainment. This hypothesis was exploratory, as the vulnerability of older adults may be represented by several distinct types, with specific sociodemographic characteristics for each type. Second, we propose that greater vulnerabilities are associated with more negative emotional responses. In contrast, the relationship between vulnerability and positive emotional responses might be cross-current or nonsignificant. Last, we hypotheses that vulnerable older adults would have better emotional well-being when they had positive rather than negative aging attitudes. Moreover, salutary effects of positive cognition on emotional responses might be differential across vulnerability types.

2. Methods

3. Measures

4. Results

Table 1 reports descriptive characteristics of listed variables in this study. Among 2003 respondents, female (N=1183, 59.06%) and those over 65 years old (N=1129, 56.45%) accounted for the majority. Additionally, more than half of the respondents were Non-Hispanic white (N=1300, 65.07%), been married or coupled (N=1256, 62.80%), and had high school education or above (N=1682, 83.98%). Although 62.1% (N=1242) of the elderly had ADL difficulty(s), the proportion for a self-reported poor or fair health status was only 38.92% (N=778). In line with the high proportion of self-fulfilling affective profile (N=1277, 72.11%), older adults in this study reported averagely higher positive (Mean=12.69, SD=4.23, range 0-20) versus negative scores (Mean=3.33, SD=3.07, range 0-20) in emotional responses. Regarding vulnerability items, unable to do chores (N=502, 25.10%) or pay the bills (N=419, 20.9%) by themselves, had to help others with the chores (N=428, 21.4%), and had delayed dental care (N=434, 21.7%) were the most frequent ones. The mean score of positive aging attitudes was 20.09 (SD=5.42, range 5-30), and other details are shown in Table 1.

Latent Class Analysis reveals that older adults in the current study developed three distinct patterns of vulnerability when confronted with the COVID-19 threat. Accordingly, older adults distributed unfairly across vulnerability types, as the proportion in three classes was 19%, 9%, and 72%, respectively. (see Table S1)

Figure 1 presents the detected vulnerability types based on the estimated probability of respondents from each latent class answered yes to vulnerability items. The solid black line refers to older adults who demonstrated slight vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Apart from several experiences commonly witnessed by populations, such as income deduction and spending growth, older adults in this group are prone to experience a certain degree of inconveniences regarding chores and bills. About 72% of older adults in this study had slight vulnerabilities in sustaining daily routine and could be comparatively healthier and more capable than two other types. Besides, about one in five of the older adults had a vulnerability in healthcare use. Comparatively, they had intense demands in surgery, doctor visits, dental care et al., but failed to accommodate due to lockdowns in COVID-19. Noteworthy, another 9% of older adults were comprehensively vulnerable when confronted with the COVID-19 threat. Besides elevated risks in life inconveniences and pandemic exposure, persons in this group are prone to experience healthcare shortages and economic hardships. A 20% to 50% probability of experiencing delayed survey, doctor visits, and dental care, along with income deduction, spending growth, food shortage, and financial due miss, went to older adults with dual vulnerabilities. Details could be seen in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Vulnerability Groups Detected among Older Adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Notes: vl to vl6 are items used to measure the vulnerability of older adults during the pandemic.

v1 Been diagnosed with the COVID-19; v2 Has household member been diagnosed with the COVID-19; v3 Had delayed surgery; v4 Had delayed doctor visit; v5 Had delayed prescription filling; v6 Had delayed dental care; v7 Had other delayed healthcare services; v8 Experienced income deduction; v9 Experienced spending growth; v10 Had food shortage due to financial hardships; v11 Missed financial dues; v12 Had other financial hardships; v13 Ever asked help from somebody outsides household to pay bills during the pandemic; v14 Ever asked help from somebody outsides household to do chores during the pandemic; v15 Helped somebody outsides household to pay their bills during the pandemic; v16 Helped somebody outsides household to do chores during the pandemic.

Table 2 further demonstrates each vulnerability type’s sociodemographic and health-related characteristics and identifies the differences between them. As noted in Table 3, there was no significant difference in affective profiles between individuals from different vulnerability types. Comparatively, the female was prone to have either healthcare use vulnerability or dual vulnerabilities other than slight vulnerability, whereas older adults aged over 65 were more likely to experience slight vulnerability. The proportion of Non-Hispanic white presented significant differences between vulnerability types, which was highest in healthcare use vulnerability (72.47%) and lowest in the dual vulnerability type (39.13%). Besides, older adults with less education, had ADL difficulties, and been uncoupled were most likely to have dual vulnerabilities. Details are presented in Table 2.

In Table 3, the relationships between vulnerability type, aging attitudes, and positive emotional responses during the COVID-19 pandemic are presented. As affective profile was hypothesized with an anchoring effect on emotional responses, this study used the affective profile as a Level-2 identity. Socioeconomic and health-related variables entered on the first step, and aging attitudes were entered on the second step to predict positive emotional responses. In the second model, positive aging attitudes presented a significant association with positive emotional responses towards the pandemic (B=0.263, SE=0.017), also explained an additional 6.27% of the variability in positive emotions over and above socioeconomic and health-related factors. However, the third model indicated that no significant differences in positive emotional responses existed between vulnerability types. With aging attitudes and vulnerability types controlled, had some college or higher education (B=0.661, SE=0.254) and lived with better economic situations (B=0.605, SE=0.192 for mid-level; B=0.617, SE=0.211 for rich) was associated with more positive emotional responses. On the contrary, persons who had ADL difficulties (B=-0.436, SE=0.183) and perceived themselves as good or better health status were less likely to have positive emotions than their counterparts. See more details in Table 3.

Table 4 focuses on negative emotional responses and explores their relationship with aging attitudes and vulnerability types. A set of hierarchical linear regressions was conducted with socioeconomic and health-related variables entered in the first step, and aging attitudes entered the second step to predict negative emotional responses. Positive aging attitudes explained 5.16% of the variance in negative emotions and presented a significant relationship with these responses (B=-0.194, SE=0.014). The vulnerability type entered in the third model, revealing that older adults who had healthcare use vulnerability (B=0.476, SE=0.159) and dual vulnerabilities (B=1.186, SE=0.274) were prone to develop more passive emotions than their slightly vulnerable counterparts. Moreover, there was a significant moderation effect of aging attitudes and vulnerability type on negative emotional responses. Positive aging attitudes are critical for persons being dual vulnerable, as negative emotions reduced faster in older adults with dual vulnerabilities than the slight vulnerable counterparts when aging attitudes improved (B=-0.118, SE=0.045). With aging attitudes and vulnerability type controlled, female (B=0.542, SE=0.140) was more likely to have negative emotions than male counterparts, whereas having Medicaid (B=-0.530, SE=0.253) and being uncoupled (B=-0.336, SE=0.152) associated with fewer negative emotional responses.

5. Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic has put older adults at increased risks of life disruptions and negative emotional responses. This study reveals that older adults aging in the COVID times had three latent classes regarding their vulnerability. The proportion of older persons as slightly vulnerable, the healthcare uses vulnerable, and the dual vulnerable was 72%, 19%, and 9%, respectively. With the affective profile as a cluster factor, vulnerability presented no significant association with positive emotions. However, older adults who had healthcare uses or dual vulnerabilities developed more negative emotions than their slightly vulnerable counterparts. Positive aging attitudes associated with better emotional well-being generally and moderated the relationship between vulnerability types and negative emotional responses. Findings in this study provide a better understanding of the vulnerability of aging in the COVID-19 and shed light on emotional well-being promotion strategies in pandemic contexts.

First, we propose that older adults in the United States have significant but differential types of vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and 28% of them experienced delayed healthcare needs solely or together with financial hardships. Due to the non-availability of transport and cancellation of appointments, the delayed needs of healthcare were prevalent during the pandemic, especially in hard-hit areas where health resources were massively reassigned for pandemic control (Cudjoe and Kotwal, 2020). Compared with younger adults, older adults are more vulnerable given their additional physical illness and unfamiliarity with telehealth applications. For example, one contemporaneous study conducted among U.S. adults proposed a 46.6% prevalence of delayed dental care during the pandemic (Kranz et al., 2021). In contrast, the probability for such delay was about 55% to 70% among older adults in the current study. Another report claimed that doctor visits for U.S. adults from June to September in 2020 were about to 86% of the pre-pandemic level (IQVIA, 2020). However, more than half of the older adults reported delayed doctor visits in this study. Noteworthy, nearly one in ten older persons had dual vulnerabilities in financial hardships and delayed healthcare use, which is consistent with the previous estimation on the poverty rate of American elderly (Semega et al., 2019). As half of the older adults live without emergency savings (Catherine S. Harvey, 2019), and 25% of them depend largely or exclusively on social security benefits (Dushi et al., 2017), it is worrisome that more individuals would fell below the threshold of poverty if pension funding had shortfalls. Thus, we urge more attention to older adults’ vulnerabilities regarding healthcare use and financial sustainment. Public health programs in pandemics should consider the necessity of timely healthcare delivery and financial support to the elderly.

Additionally, females, BLOAC (black, Latinx, and older adults of color), and those aged below 65 years old, been uncoupled, less educated, and with ADL difficulties were more likely to be severely vulnerable. In line with previous researches (Harman, 2016; Wenham et al., 2020), this study proposes that women experienced greater risks in delayed healthcare use and financial hardships during pandemics. On the one hand, women take more care of their health than their male counterparts in general but are more likely to skip medical appointments due to greater fear of infection and social inequalities such as inadequate health coverage (Allen et al., 2020). On the other hand, women are less likely than men to have power in decision-making when emergencies occurred, and their needs in healthcare and economic concerns were largely unmet (Harman, 2016). Besides, consistent with previous studies (Black et al., 2019; Kranz et al., 2021), BLOAC and those uncoupled, less educated, and with ADL difficulties have elevated vulnerabilities given their greater health and financial risks versus limited capabilities. However, it is counterintuitive that the young-old developed more vulnerabilities than the old-old counterparts, as prior studies prone to take age as a risk factor of vulnerability (Cesari et al., 2017; Morrow-Howell et al., 2020). Two possible explanations might contribute to this inconsistency. On the financial vulnerability, while older adults aged over 65 have a stable income from social security benefits, most of the young-old are still active in the labor market. During the economic recession in pandemics, the young-old had difficulty sustaining their income and reentering the workforce (Pfefferbaum and North, 2020), thereby more chance to experience financial hardships. On the other hand, the old-old may have developed greater tolerance to their illness for healthcare use vulnerability and more familiar with telemedicine visits than the young-old do. As one prior study supports, older adults aged 55-65 had fewer telemedicine visits than their older counterparts (Eberly et al., 2020). Findings on each vulnerability type’s sociodemographic characteristics help target the older adults severely damaged during the pandemic.

Third, this study reveals that the vulnerability of older adults presents no significant relationship with positive emotions but associates with more negative emotional responses during the pandemic. Previous studies claimed that more significant vulnerabilities would lead to a ruined sense of self-continuity and additional stress from traumatic loss, reducing positive emotions in adults (Pallant and Lae, 2002; Fogel, 2009). However, this study found no significantly reduced positive emotions among older adults with vulnerabilities. On the one hand, the sustainment of positive emotions might result from conscious efforts of which older adults perceived their vulnerabilities as prevalent and occasional, thus reducing negative impacts of vulnerability on subjective well-being. On the other hand, there might also exist an autonomous protective mechanism regarding positive emotions in older adults. Given that over 70% of the respondents reported the self-fulfilling affective profile, it is reasonable to assume that older adults in this study developed socioemotional selectivity and preferential attention to positive stimuli over negative information (Reed et al., 2014). The intrinsic motivation for emotionally meaningful goals has stronger associations with positive emotional regulations than negative emotional responses (Vandercammen et al., 2014). Nevertheless, this study suggests that negative reactions are more sensitive to external changes during adverse events. In accordance, one previous study found that when older adults were engaged in interactions with a hostile environment, they would experience the same levels of negative reactivities as the younger people (Charles et al., 2009). Another study analyzes with a situation selection perspective (Birditt, 2014). It proposes that older adults reported lesser negative responses to mildly distressing events that they could largely adapt to, such as disrupted life routines. However, when required to engage in unavoidable but stressful events, more negative emotions would onset among older adults (Birditt, 2014). Thus, with the aim of emotional well-being promotion, this study urges that prevention and intervention on negative reactivities are of utmost importance.

Last, we propose that positive aging attitudes benefit older adults’ emotional well-being in the COVID-19 context, especially for individuals who had vulnerabilities in healthcare use and financial sustainment. Emerging data show that the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 are being disproportionally borne by older adults who are socially vulnerable (Calderón-Larrañaga et al., 2020; Ayalon et al., 2021). As noted by prior studies (Scheppers et al., 2006; Wallace et al., 2013), coexisted unmet medical needs and financial hardships can exacerbate the self-efficacy of old persons and stimulate negative affections afterward. Positive aging attitudes, on the contrary, might promote the sense of capability among the vulnerable elderly and partially compensate for their positive cognitions (Moody, 2006). Particularly in the COVID-19 context, positive views regarding aging have direct and indirect associations with emotional well-being. More detailed, whereas ageism information is more likely to attack old persons with more significant vulnerabilities, positive aging attitudes help against such information and reduce negative ruminations (Tarazona-Santabalbina et al., 2021). Besides, older adults with confidence in their aging process are less likely to consider the accumulative risks of vulnerabilities as threats to their future lives (Swift et al., 2017), thus lowering the severity of negative emotions regarding current vulnerabilities. Thus, we propose that encouraging positive aging attitudes is essential for public health communication programs to promote emotional well-being among vulnerable older adults during adverse events.

Conflict of interest declaration

None

Description of authors’ roles

Mingqi Fu carried out the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. Jing Guo assisted with writing the article. Xi Chen supervised the data computation. Qilin Zhang designed the study and revised the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

None