DevelopmentalPsychology Copyright 1989 by the American PsychologicalAssociation,Inc.

1989, Vol.25, No. I, 109-121 0012-1649/89/$00.75

Gains and Losses in Development Throughout Adulthood as Perceived

by Different Adult Age Groups
Jutta Heckhausen, Roger A. Dixon, and Paul B. Baltes
Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education
Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany

Focuses on belief systems about development throughout adulthood held by young, middle-aged,
and old adults. Ss rated an extensive list of person-descriptive adjectives with respect to 3 aspects of
developmental increase: (a) the degree to which it is shown over the adult life span, (b) its desirability,
and (c) the ages (20 to 90 in decades) at which it is expected to begin (onset age) and end (closing
age). There were three major findings: (a) there was much interage consensus in expectations about
the nature of adult development, (b) the nature of adult development was perceived to be multidirec-
tional (gains and losses coexist), although the overall conception implied increasing risk of decline
and decreasing potential for growth across the adult life span, and (c) older adults held more elaborate
conceptions about development throughout adulthood than younger adults.

Current research in life-span development has brought about
a revival of interest in subjective beliefs about the human life
course.I Both sociological and psychological traditions nurture
this interest and offer a mutually enhancing interdisciplinary
forum of theoretical and empirical discourse.
The sociological tradition views normative conceptions of the
life course as a phenomenon established primarily by societal
structure (Brim & Wheeler, 1966; Dannefer, 1984; Featherman,
1986; Featherman & Lerner, 1985; Hagestad & Neugarten,
1985; Riley, 1986). This approach implies that societal struc-
ture provides directional timetables of ontogenesis. In terms of
psychological phenomena, such societal forces are expected to
result in a fair degree of consensus among individuals about the
desirability and timing of developmental phenomena across the
life course. The study of age and cohort norms (Neugarten,
Moore, & Lowe, 1965) and of age stereotypes (Green, 1981;
Harris, 1975; McTavish, 1971; Shaver, 1978-1979) are in-
stances of this line of sociological and social-psychological
scholarship.
The current psychological traditions giving rise to the interest
in subjective beliefs and expectations about life-span develop-
ment are twofold. On the one hand, there is the longstanding
interest in the topic of the life course as a subjective, experiential
phenomenon (Mason & Rebok, 1984; Ryff, 1984; Whitbourne,
1986; Williams, Denney, & Schadler, 1983). On the other hand,
there is the general tradition in the study of expectations, be-
We thank Daniel P. Keating, Jacqui Smith, and Ursula Staudinger for
collegial discussion, John Nesselroade, Alexander von Eye, and Philipp
Wood for advice on data analysis, and Anita Giinther, Bettina Hosen-
feld, and U-lman Lindenberger for help with data collection, analyses,
and graphics in various phases of the project. Roger A. Dixon is now at
the Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, British Colum-
bia, Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jutta
Heckhausen, Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Edu-
cation, Lentzeallee 94, 1000 Berlin 33, Federal Republic of Germany.
109
liefs, or mental representations as guiding forces for behavior
and action (Bandura, 1986). The generic question is the study
of the relationship between cognition or beliefs and actual be-
havior. Research on subjective beliefs about the life course offers
an opportunity to obtain an account of how individuals' beliefs
about the ontogenetic future are organized. Subsequently, it
may be possible to link such beliefs about the ontogenetic future
to behavior implicitly or explicitly directed by individuals at
their own and others' development (Brandtst/idter, 1984; Lerner
& Busch-Rossnagel, 1981).
In this study, three major facets of subjective conceptions
about development throughout adulthood are targeted: (a) sub-
jective beliefs about which aspects of personality, social, and
intellectual functioning are sensitive to developmental change
at any period throughout adulthood; (b) the degree of desirabil-
ity of the characteristics identified as change-sensitive; and (c)
conceptions about the age-related timing (onset and closing age)
of the expected changes. Three specific predictions were made
about the nature of development-related beliefs.
First, overall, people of all adult ages should hold quite sim-
ilar views about adult development. This expectation is derived
from the sociological tradition dealing with the study of age-
related expectations and stereotypes (Dannefe~ 1984; Hagestad
& Neugarten, 1985; Neugarten, Moore, & Lowe, 1965; Riley,
1986).
Second, we expected that development-related beliefs about
different segments of the adult life span would vary with respect
to the desirability of the expected changes. In accordance with
previous studies on stereotypes of aging (Green, 1981; Harris,
1975; McTavish, 1971) and with research directed at objective
measures of performance (Baltes & Kliegl, 1986; Denney, 1984;
Salthouse, 1985), we hypothesized an increasingly larger p r o
portion of losses (i.e., perceived undesirable changes) and fewer
gains (i.e., perceived desirable changes) to be associated with
i In this article the terms beli~ conception, and expectation are used
interchangeably.
110 J. HECKHAUSEN, R. DIXON, AND P. BALTES
older ages of the adult life span. 2 In accordance with life-span
models of socialization, however, we also expected that develop-
ment in all segments of the adult life span (including advanced
age) would be viewed as multidirectional, that is, as entailing
both growth and decline (Baltes, 1987; Labouvie-Vief, 1982).
Third, we predicted a certain advantage on the part of the
older adults in the knowledge (whether veridical or not) regard-
ing the nature of life-span development. That is, within a con-
text of a high degree of interage agreement, we expected older
adults (when compared with young and middle-aged adults) to
demonstrate beliefs about change sensitivity and timing of
change (onset and closing age) that would reflect a greater de-
gree of elaboration (i.e., richness and differentiation), particu-
larly with regard to the second half of the life span. In this re-
search, the degree of richness in development-related beliefs is
indicated by the number of attributes that subjects expected to
increase during the adult life course. Differentiation of beliefs is
reflected in variations in age-related timing of expected change.
The prediction of greater elaboration (i.e., richness and
differentiation) in older adults' beliefs is based on two assump-
tions. First, as adults live through adulthood into old age, their
belief system about the second half of life continues to evolve
(Dixon & Baltes, 1986; Smith, Dixon, & Baltes, in press). Sec-
ond, this evolving knowledge tends to incorporate an increased
awareness about variability and dimension specificity in devel-
opment. This awareness would be in close agreement with re-
search using "objective" measures for cognitive, personality,
and social behavior across the adult life span. Such research has
demonstrated that interindividual variability, multidimension-
ality, and multidirectionalitycharacterize the nature of human
aging (Baltes, 1987; Schaie, 1983; Thomae, 1979).
Method
Subjects
All subjects were volunteers, recruited through newspaper advertise-
ments in Berlin (West). They were paid 20 DM (Deutsche Mark) for
each session. The sample of young adults (n ffi 40) consisted of 20
women and 20 men (age range: 20-36 years; M age ffi 27.9 years). The
middie-aged adult group (n = 35) consisted of 15 women and 20 men
(age range: 40-55 years; M age -- 47.5 years). The older adult sample
(n = 37) consisted of 20 women and 17 men (age range: 60-85 years;M
age = 70.9 years). Reported subjectivehealth in the older age group was
above averageat a mean rating of 3.9 on a 5-point scale.
For this study, a selection of subjects biased toward the upper end of
the socioeconomicand sociocultural distribution was desirable for two
reasons. First, it maximizes the likelihood that subjects hold a rich vo-
cabulary necessaryto describebeliefs. Second, age/cohortcomparisons
in the upper range of education are likely to minimizethe confounding
role of cohort differences in educational level. When comparing the
three subject age groups with the general population in terms of educa-
tional level, all three turn out to be a clearly positive selection of the
general population (e.g., percentages of total group who finished high
school: young subjects, 78%; young general population, 34%; middle-
aged subjects, 49%; middle-aged general, 15%; old subjects, 49%; old
general, 14%). Thus, the young adult group exhibited higher educa-
tional attainments than the middle-aged and old adults. This age differ-
ence reflects corresponding differences in the representative birth co-
horts. It should be noted that this subject selection (higher educational
levels for the young) might favor the young adult age group in terms of
the elaboration of their development-relatedbeliefs. Thus, the testing of
our prediction about age-related increase in belief elaboration is ren-
dered more conservative.
With respect to vocabulary, no significantage differenceswere found
for the scale scores attained on the Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest
fiir Erwachsene (HAW[E;1955) vocabulary test. The mean scores were
as follows: for the young, 10.5; for the middle-aged, 9.4; and for the old
adults, 10.0.
Materials
A German translation of Gough's AdjectiveChecklist (Gough, 1960)
supplemented by items from a list by Anderson (Anderson, 1958) was
used as stimulus material. The total list included 358 adjectivesdescrib.
ing a wide range of personality (e.g., skeptical), social (e.g, friendly),
and intellectual (e.g., intelligent) characteristics. In order to determine
the relative number of desirable to undesirable adjectives, 10 rate~s,
equally divided by age group and sex, evaluated the 358 adjectives as
either desirable, neutral, or undesirable. The averagepercent agreement
(across the 358 attributes) betww-~nthe raters was 83. Of the 358 adjec-
fives, an averageof 188 adjectiveswerejudged as desirable, 132 as unde-
s'wable,and 38 as neutral. Thus, in the pool of 358 adjectivesthe num-
ber of desirable (e.g., wise) and undesirable (e.g., forgetful) attributes
Was relatively well-balanced, although the number of desirable attri-
butes was greater. (The items and pertinent characteristics are described
more completely in the Results section.)
Subjects were asked to rate each adjective on a rating scale for the
variables developmental increase and desirability (ratings 1 through 9),
and for the variables onset age and closing age (ages 20 through 90, in
decades). The sequence of pages in the list (25 adjectivesper page) was
randomized.
Procedure
The ratings were done in two group sessions (8 to 15 participants of
different ages per group), 2 weeks apart. For each of the instructional
conditions in the two sessions,subjects were asked to answer the ques-
tions by thinking about people in general, not just about themselves.
Instructions were givenorally as well as written on the coverpage of the
adjective list. In the first session, we obtained a measure of perceived
sensitivity for developmentalchange. Subjects wexe asked to rate each
adjective (e.g., intelligent, reflective, mature, absent-miuded, bitter) on
a 9-point scale (1 --- not at all, 5 = medium, 9 = very)as to what extent
it is perceived to increase (i.e., "become stronger or more common")
at any period during adulthood (20 through 90 years). Note that this
instruction restricts the nature of change to "increasing" attributes)
The restriction to changes involving increases, however, is rendered a
less serious limitation by the fact that half of the adjectivesin the 358
list represented opposite ends of similar dimensions (e.g., intelligent,
stupid). As a consequence, we expected that a major portion of the di-
rectional spectrum of possible developmental change would be cap-
tured. It should also be kept in mind, that, although the instruction for
2 Note in this context that there could be alternativesto the definitions
of gains (desirable attributes expected to increase with age) and losses
(undesirable attributes expected to increase with age) that are used in
this study. A gain could also be conceivedof as an undesirable attribute
decreasing, whereas a loss would be implied by a desirable attribute
decreasing.
We considered alternative ways of capturing the nature of the ex-
pected developmental change associated with each attribute such as
would result from asking subjects to draw an age-related "trajectory of
expected change" We opted for the presentprocedure because in pilot
observations subjects reported that drawing such graphs for individual
attributes was very difficult, if not impossible, for them.
 GAINS AND LOSSES IN DEVELOPMENT
the ratings of developmental increase were worded dearly, some subjects
still might have also occasionally included "decreasing" psyebolngical
features in their ratings of developmental increase.
The item pool for the second session was selected from the total pool
of 358 adjectives, on the basis of the ratings of the extent of developmen-
tal increase given in the first session by the young and the old adults.
Those items that were given "chang~sensitivity" ratings greater than 5
(i.e., greater than the average amount of expected increase) by at least
50% ofthe young or at least 50% of the old adults were inelnded in the
reduced set of adjectives for the second session. The resulting set of
items contained 148 change-sensitive adjectives. This reduced set of
change-sensitive items contained (on the basis of the ratings of 10
judges) 99 desirable, 13 neutral, and 36 undesirable items.
In the second session, subjects were first asked to rate the desirability
(1 = very undesirable, 5 = neutral, 9 = very desirable) of developmental
increases (e.g., becoming more intelligent, more absent-minded, etc.)
on a 9-point scale separately for each of the 148 change-sensitiveadjec-
fives. Subsequently, subjects were asked to indicate for each adjective
the expected onset age (i.e., the age at which increase starts) and the
expected closing age (i.e., the age at which increase ends) of the respec-
fivedevelopmental increase on an 8-step scale (in decades) ranging from
20 to 90 years. Subjects were instructed to take the age of 20 years as
the beginning and the age ofg0 years as the end of the adult life span.
In order to obtain information about the stability of the ratings, sub-
jeets were contacted again for a reassessment 6 months after the first
assessment. At this time, the middle-a$ed adult group was added to the
design. Because the middle-nged adult group had not yet been included
at the time of the first assessment, test and retest data were available
only for the young and the old adul~ Eighty-fivepercent of the young
and 84% of the old subjects took part in the stability assessment. Data
were collected in the same manner as in the first assessment (i.e., ratings
of expected developmental increase in the first session and ratings of
desirability of change and expected age of onset and close in the second
session). In addition, afl~ rating the expected onset and closing age,
subjects were asked to rate each adjective for other criteria such as ex-
pected controllability and significance of change. These data will not be
reported here because they are part of an additional study on beliefs
about development with a separate theoretical rationale (Heckhausen
& Baltes, 1988).
Results
Before considering the findings related to our predictions, we
will present information about basic features of the data (means
and standard deviations per adjective and distributional charac-
teristics of ratings) and about the temporal stability of ratings.
We will then report results focusing on the three interrelated
research questions. First, do subjects in the three adult age
groups hold similar views about adult development? Second,
do development-related beliefs about different segments of the
adult life span vary with respect to the desirability of the ex-
pected change? Third, is there an advantage on the part of the
old adults in the degree of elaboration of development-related
beliefs?
B a s i c Features o f t h e D a t a
As a first step, we examined the general distributional charac-
teristics of the ratings and, for young and old adults, their 6-
month temporal stability. Thus, the results presented (apart
from those relating to stability assessment) are based on the
data obtained in the first assessment, which for the middle-aged
111
adults took place at the time when the old and young adults
were retested.
Distributional characteristics. The means and standard devi-
ations for each of the 148 adjectives for each of the four instruc-
tional conditions are presented in Table 1.
Figure 1 displays the distributions o f ratings by young, mid-
die-aged, and old adults for developmental increase (top panel)
and desirability of change (bottom panel) for the 148 adjectives.
Figure 2 describes the distribution of expected ages for onset
and close of change for the 148 adjectives. Overall, the two fig-
ures suggest a fair degree of similarity in the distributions of
ratings provided by the three adult age groups. Only for ex-
pected closing age did the distributions appear to reveal age/
cohort differences. (We will evaluate whether some of these age
differences proved to be statistically significant in subsequent
sections.) Furthermore, it is important to note that the distribu-
tions of ratings seem similar across age groups but dissimilar
across the four variables (i.e., developmental increase, desirabil-
ity, onset age, closing age). The dissimilarities across the vari-
ables suggest that the subjects seem to have responded differen-
tially to the different rating instructions rather than to have
based their ratings on a ~-neral or age-related response set.
Stability. We derived stability estimates by correlating the
item means for subgroups of the subject population. Thus, by
computing Spearman correlations between the item means of
the first assessment and the second assessment, we estimated the
temporal stability of rank orders. The test-retest correlations
were as follows: .95 for the ratings of developmental increase,
.99 for the ratings of desirability, .98 for the expected onset ages,
and .96 for the expected closing ages. In other words, when sub-
jects were asked to repeat the ratings 6 months later, they pro-
vided a close-to-perfect match of the rank order obtained in the
first assessment.
C o n s e n s u s in Views on D e v e l o p m e n t in A d u l t h o o d
In the next step, we examined the degree ofinterrater consen-
sus. We were interested in two aspects of consensus: interage
group consensus and intersubjeet consensus within age group.
Interage group consensus. To obtain an estimate of the de-
free of interage group consensus, Spearman rank correlations
were computed across the 148 item means. Within-age group
correlations were also computed as a baseline comparison for
interage group differences. Each age group was randomly di-
vided into halves (while assuring roughly equal distribution of
men and women in the two groups). Subsequently, rank corre-
lations were computed for each combination of groups within
and between age levels.
Table 2 gives the within- and between-age-group correlations
of item means for developmental increase, desirability, onset
age, and closing age. 4 Using the within-age-group correlation as
a baseline of consensus, Table 2 shows the overall within- and
between-age-group correlations to be quite high. For three vari-
ables, however, between-age-froup correlations proved to
be significantly lower than within-age-group correlations
4 It should be noted that roughly equal correlations were found when
age groups were split by subjects in various different random ways.
1 12 J. HECKHAUSEN, R. DIXON, AND P. BALTES

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings for Each Adjective: Developmental Increase,
Desirability, Onset Age (Onset), and Closing Age (Close)
Increase Desirability Onset Close Increase Desirability Onset Close

Adjective M SD M SD M SD M SD Adjective M SD M SD M SD M SD
Experienced 7.65 1.56 8.03 1.14 40.6 10.9 80.9 10.7 Versatile 5.59 2.40 7,90 1.43 26.7 11.9 69.3 8.5
Knowledge of Radiant 5.58 2.43 7,72 1.28 31.1 14.3 76.5 11.1
human Suspicious 5.58 2.33 2,83 1.25 49.1 18.6 83.3 18.6
nature 7.22 1.68 8.33 1.15 38.3 9.1 80.8 11.3 Contented 5.56 2.23 7,63 1.35 42.1 17.1 79.9 14.5
WeU-read 7.16 1.45 8.02 1.19 30.7 11.9 80.0 11.8 Moralistic 5.56 2.44 3.88 1.09 44.9 21.9 80.7 14.8
Mature 7.02 1.80 8.13 1.38 40.4 11.3 79.2 12.4 Patient 5.55 2.07 7.34 1.31 42.6 14.1 78.6 14.0
Forgetful 6.81 2.15 1.91 .85 56.8 13.5 87.8 16.2 Spendthrift 5.55 2.11 7.10 1.42 36.2 16.4 73.9 11.3
Sense of duty 6.76 2.04 7.32 1.44 30.0 16.3 73.8 8.5 Cultured 5.54 2.42 7.40 1.36 33.6 15.4 78.2 12.0
Wise 6.71 1.95 7.86 .73 54.8 13.4 85.8 12.9 Complaining 5.53 2.50 2,12 1.50 52.8 14.2 82.9 18.0
Responsible 6.66 2.03 7.90 1.32 30.8 1 3 . 1 74.7 9.4 Leisurely 5.52 1.98 6.04 1.88 54.2 14.2 85.2 9.6
Level-beaded 6.65 1.75 7.48 1.13 40.6 14.3 77.6 12.0 Clear-thinking 5.51 2.22 8,25 1.42 26.8 11.9 70.6 7.7
Understanding 6.60 2.01 7.93 1.35 37.1 12.5 76.9 11.9 Tolerant 5.50 2.25 7.81 1.59 33.2 14.2 73.2 13.0
Realistic 6.54 2.10 7.57 1.38 32.8 13.0 72.2 11.7 Obstinate 5.47 2.41 2.32 1.81 46.5 16.8 80.7 21.5
Consistent 6.54 1.84 7.86 1.33 40.8 13.9 78.5 10.8 Thorough 5.46 2.27 7.15 1.48 30.8 14.7 70.4 9.4
Conservative 6.43 2.48 4.30 1.14 43.7 20.8 82.1 15.4 Aloof 5.45 2.08 4.70 1.52 39.6 18.9 75.8 13.6
Worrying 6.41 1.91 5.88 1.17 39.7 19.2 81.1 13.8 Complicated 5.45 2.53 2.55 1.57 44.7 15.7 81.3 21.7
Knowing 6.41 1.73 7.73 1.16 38.0 11.8 79.6 12.8 Logical 5.45 2.30 7.85 1.49 26.0 12.2 69.7 8.3
Reflective 6.37 1.92 6.74 1.23 37.2 14.6 80.1 13.6 Methodical 5.43 2.23 7.06 1.30 29.6 15.5 67.1 7.6
Reasonable 6.29 2.00 7.95 1.33 34.6 11.9 77.8 12.9 Polished 5.43 2.22 6.35 1.50 31.4 23.0 70.1 9.7
Cheerful 6.25 1.75 7.73 1.29 36.1 11.9 73.5 9.8 Peaceable 5.40 2.25 7.47 1.35 40.0 15.1 81.2 16.8
Knowledgeable 6.23 2.27 7.97 1.41 28.5 13.5 78.8 10.2 Individualistic 5.39 2.28 7.08 1.69 28.9 16.1 73.0 12.1
Foresighted 6.22 1.86 7.30 1.25 35.1 13.3 70.6 9.5 Overcautious 5.38 2.49 3.18 1.23 55.9 22.9 84.2 16.9
Disciplined 6.17 2.23 6.93 1.27 33.5 16.6, 73.6 11.9 Loyal 5.38 2.11 6.95 1.70 37.9 14.3 76.9 14.2
Planful 6.14 1.94 6.62 1.30 31.4 15.7 66.3 8.3 Benign 5.38 2.31 7.61 .90 42.6 15.6 84.9 16.0
Skeptical 6.14 2.08 5.36 1.62 38.5 18.7 77.2 15.0 Accurate 5.38 2.35 6.67 1.42 29.6 15.0 71.9 9.1
Educated 6.13 2.01 7.82 1.29 30.0 13.4 79.8 11.2 Persevering 5.37 2.08 7.38 1.57 28.2 13.3 65.9 8.8
Self-controlled 6.13 1.94 7.25 1.52 33.7 17.0 72.1 9.3 Stolid 5.37 2.58 1.87 1.74 44.6 13.2 79.6 19.9
Forgiving 6.10 2.23 7.90 1.19 38.5 13.7 80.8 15.3 Persistent 5.36 2.16 4.67 1.84 31.4 20.5 68.3 12.5
Dignified 6.08 2.09 6.46 .75 55.0 19.3 85.0 13.1 Faithful 5.35 2.40 7.73 1.30 31.6 15.1 84.1 12.7
Influential 6.06 2.28 6.20 1.08 38.6 15.7 70.3 9.2 Kind 5.35 2.19 7.57 1.15 38.0 14.6 79.2 13.5
Reliable 6.05 2.39 8.14 1.31 28.6 10.7 76.8 8.9 Resigned 5.35 2.49 1.95 1.52 53.1 12.7 80.5 16.7
Choosy 6.04 2.16 5.72 1.42 34.1 17.7 74.9 11.9 Obliging 5.34 2.13 7.31 1.59 30.7 14.6 71.5 12.0
Absent-minded 6.03 2.20 1.69 1.31 51.9 10.9 85.3 17.0 Adaptable 5.33 2.28 7.03 1.67 30.1 10.4 67.1 15.8
Rational 6.03 1.95 7.26 1.31 31.6 14.9 74.9 9.7 Interests wide 5.32 2.27 8.24 1.52 24.1 11.4 72.3 7.4
Self-confident 6.03 2.15 7.47 1.47 31.1 14.2 68.9 8.7 Reserved 5.32 2.26 4.21 1.58 40.1 18.2 76.4 15.3
Easy going 6.01 1.98 7.56 1.70 40.4 14.4 75.8 14.8 Arrogant 5.31 2.35 4.43 2.16 36.2 13.2 65.4 17.0
Independent 5.97 2.34 7.96 1.50 35.3 1 5 . 1 72.7 12.5 Defensive 5.29 2.09 3.64 1.69 43.3 19.6 77.6 17.2
Cautious 5.95 2.23 6.14 1.01 44.4 17.6 83.2 14.3 Fuzzy 5.29 2.36 3.46 1.45 37.5 19.8 76.3 15.8
Organized 5.95 2.21 6.46 1.23 35.0 17.9 65.4 8.5 Praising 5.29 2.20 6.74 1.45 37.8 15.7 76.2 12.3
Stubborn 5.93 2.66 1.79 1.25 53.2 13.1 84.8 20.1 Productive 5.28 2.08 7.37 1.40 26.2 9.2 66.3 13.5
Thrifty 5.93 2.45 5.63 1.41 38.6 18.4 82.1 16.8 Relaxed 5.28 2.19 7.68 1.31 43.3 13.3 79.4 15.0
Observant 5.90 2.32 7.80 1.63 28.3 13.5 71.9 11.4 Anxious 5.26 2.54 2.29 1.49 52.2 14.4 83.0 19.3
Trustworthy 5.90 2.43 8.04 1.25 31.9 13.1 80.0 12.2 Materialistic 5.25 2.38 3.09 1.64 30.2 18.5 67.6 13.1
Successful 5.90 2.00 6.88 1.08 33.6 15.3 66.2 8.5 Smart 5.25 2.37 8.07 1.22 30.3 12.1 78.9 10.8
Serious 5.89 2.14 6.71 1.61 33.7 16.8 75.4 11.5 Determined 5.25 2.09 7.59 1.46 27.7 11.3 67.1 7.6
Conscientious 5.86 2.48 7.53 1.38 28.8 14.4 73.8 8.8 Nagging 5.25 2.76 1.52 1.36 54.4 9.3 84.1 19.6
Dependable 5.86 2.36 8.12 1.40 29.9 11.6 77.7 10.6 Practical 5.25 2.37 7.49 1.54 25.6 13.2 70.3 7.2
Clumsy 5.84 2.43 1.86 1.02 54.3 13.2 87.1 18.8 Fidgety 5.24 2.18 1.90 1.18 50.2 20.7 79.3 19,7
Slow 5.83 2.53 3.05 .94 53.5 18.4 87.1 17.2 Resentful 5.23 2.49 3.80 1.88 38.1 17.1 77.9 17,3
Assertive 5.79 2.02 7.04 1.31 31.3 17.4 66.4 8.1 Forceful 5.20 1.94 6.13 1.30 30.3 15.1 67.5 8.4
Religious 5.71 2.72 4.88 1.20 42.7 17.4 85.6 18.7 Sensitive 5.18 2.59 5.53 2.13 33.4 18.3 78.9 17,7
Charismatic 5.71 2.15 6.04 1.04 36.3 18.0 66.6 8.9 Stilted 5.19 2.11 3.67 1.50 39.7 18.7 73.8 12.8
Distrustful 5.71 2.24 2.76 1.56 49.3 17.5 82.1 17.9 Affectionate 5.17 2.53 8.04 1.37 27.6 12.9 81.7 11.3
Calm 5.69 2.29 6.72 1.13 43.3 17.8 83.6 14.4 Authoritarian 5.17 2.35 3.15 1.40 39.1 21.5 71.7 12,0
Bitter 5.68 2.46 1.44 1.03 55.8 11.8 85.6 15.9 Nervous 5.16 2.35 2.18 1.80 38.1 14.0 72.6 16,9
Wordy 5.65 2.05 6.90 1.45 28.5 13.8 70.6 9.8 Disturbed 5.14 2.80 1.59 1.46 61.6 19.3 83.6 17.3
Superior 5.62 1.91 6.20 1.36 35.0 20.0 66.0 10.9 Headstrong 5.14 2.54 1.90 1.81 40.2 13.1 76.1 18.6
Sympathetic 5.62 2.18 7.22 1.47 31.4 15.8 77.8 12.7 Dominating 5.13 2.14 3.57 1.54 34.9 20.0 67.9 10.4
Self-assured 5.61 2.22 7.52 1.32 32.3 13.6 68.6 8.1 Honorable 5.12 2.59 6.71 1.02 36.5 16.3 83.4 15.3
Tactful 5.61 2.15 7.59 1.38 34.1 14.6 75.4 10.9 Weak 5.12 2.69 1.93 1.12 55.0 14.9 86.5 20.8
Considerate 5.61 2.14 7.80 1.45 34.5 13.8 74.5 11.0 Cooperative 5.11 2.12 7.45 1.56 28.6 13.6 67.0 9.2
Purposeful 5.59 2.41 7.25 1.36 28.0 14.2 63.2 7.5 Generous 5.10 2.21 7.07 1.40 37.2 13.5 77.9 14.0
Formal 5.59 1.93 3.97 1.44 38.7 16.9 71.9 12.4 Witty 5.09 2.28 7.56 1.25 33.4 13.3 74.8 11.0
 GAINS AND LOSSES IN DEVELOPMENT 1 13

Table 1 (continued)

Increase Desirability Onset Close Increase Desirability Onset Close

Adjective M SD M SD M SD M SD Adjective M SD M SD M SD M SD

Melancholic 5.08 2.52 1.72 1.40 56.5 12.5 83.4 19.5 Meek 4.84 2.31 6.91 1.51 40.7 16.4 80.0 17.3
Helpful 5.07 2.59 7.79 1.50 25.5 11.7 76.0 9.4 Impulsive 4.82 2.15 6.84 1.85 26.0 16.1 62.9 8.3
Talkative 5.03 2.44 5.94 1.56 29.3 14.7 74.6 13.7 Entertaining 4.79 2.33 7.27 1.51 25.8 14.6 73.6 8.3
Dependent 5.00 2.69 2.18 1.91 50.7 24.0 79.5 21.2 Sad 4.77 2.57 2.41 1.35 48.8 15.5 83.9 21.0
Friendly 4.99 2.53 8.07 1.26 24.7 10.8 82.7 I0.0 Adventurous 4.77 2.59 7.57 1.65 23.5 13.9 65.4 10.5
Open-minded 4.98 2.52 8.07 1.68 25.8 11.1 71.9 9.8 Industrious 4.73 2.31 6.88 1.29 24.6 15.2 69.8 8.9
Prejudiced 4.97 2.45 2.40 1.75 39.2 19.7 73.9 15.7 Proud 4.71 2.44 5.04 1.56 32.0 21.1 76.7 14.3
Cordial 4.97 2.63 7.88 1.35 33.7 12.1 81.2 13.9 Intelligent 4.68 2.68 7.80 1.57 23.6 14.3 77.0 6.9
Discreet 4.96 2.58 6.52 1.39 36.5 22.4 80.1 18.1 BoW 4.65 2.64 1.32 1.04 49.0 20.9 79.9 18.8
Good-natured 4.95 2.56 6.86 1.45 34.2 15.9 81.7 17.5 Ready-witted 4.63 2.23 7.06 1.66 26.2 10.1 68.3 17.2
Selfish 4.95 2.34 1.90 1.46 37.6 21.8 77.7 20.8 Honest 4.59 3.01 8.11 1.50 27.6 13.0 82.6 13.7
Tough 4.95 2.52 6.09 1.71 30.2 17.7 68.3 12.4 Mentally
Biased 4.92 2.47 2.22 1.88 34.1 14.6 73.4 14.7 healthy 4.56 2.71 8.71 1.15 24.0 7.8 77.6 9.5
Queer 4.91 2.53 2.19 1.48 56.1 22.9 83.7 18.2 Progressive 4.56 2.46 7.24 1.68 23.0 14.3 63.2 6.4
Fair-minded 4.87 2.43 8.14 1.37 31.9 11.9 78.8 12.5 Moody 4.52 2.52 1.80 1.72 38.3 9.7 79.1 19.4
Excitable 4.87 2.34 3.07 1.81 31.5 17.1 69.8 15.1 Humorous 4.43 2.59 8.07 1.40 28.2 10.6 80.3 11.3
Shrewd 4.86 2.33 7.29 1.46 28.3 15.6 66.5 8.2 Cynical 4.37 2.49 1.80 1.50 40.6 18.2 71.3 20.5
Dissatisfied 4.86 2.51 1.94 1.87 42.1 16.4 77.2 21.0 Stingy 4.35 2.70 1.65 1.42 44.1 22.1 81.3 17.6
Disagreeable 4.86 2.55 2.82 1.80 41.5 17.9 73.3 17.5 Curious 4.29 2.61 5.26 2.00 26.0 25.8 72.8 14.3
Powerful 4.85 2.67 4.15 1.19 40.7 19.4 67.8 9.9 Direct 4.25 2.69 6.44 2.13 26.2 20.3 64.6 11.9

(Fischer's z test within- vs. between-age-group: for developmen-
tal increase, z = 3.18, p < .05; for desirability, z = 2.26, p < .05;
and for closing age, z = 1.66, p < .05). Note, however, that this
age difference only slightly modifies the otherwise rather high
level of interage consensus. Comparisons for each combination
o f age groups yielded significant differences between the young
and the old adult group for three ofthe four variables: for devel-
opmental increase, z = 2.38, p < .05; for onset age, z = 1.60,
p < .05; and for dosing age, z = 2.04, p < .05. The other age
group comparisons for these three variables and all age group
comparisons for the desirability variable proved to be insignifi-
cant.
It should be noted that the correlations of attribute means
(computed across groups o f subjects) potentially mask lack o f
consensus between individual subjects on rating profiles across
attributes. Therefore, the investigation o f attribute means' cor-
relations was supplemented by analysis of a second aspect o f
consensus.
Intersubject consensus. The second aspect of consensus is
the intersubject agreement on rating profiles across attributes
irrespective of age. We predicted that people overall should hold
quite similar views about adult development. To compare indi-
vidual rating profiles, we chose Q-technique factor analysis. Q-
technique factor analysis is one o f six techniques for two-mode
factor analysis (Gorsuch, 1983). Using this technique individu-
als are intereorrelated across variables. When applying factor
analysis to such intercorrelations, categories of individuals are
identified as Q-technique factors. These Q-factors are loaded by
individuals with similar profiles of ratings across items.
In accordance with our prediction o f high intersubject con-
sensus, we expected to find factor structures for each ofthe four
variables (developmental increase, desirability, onset age, and
dosing age) dominated by a strong first component. In addition,
we expected the salient factor space to be highly oblique. Ac-
cordingly, we examined the factor solutions obtained for each
of the four variables in terms o f the principal components' ei-
genvalues, the amount of variance accounted for by the first
compared with the other totaled factors, and the factor intereor-
relations. The number o f factors to be retained was determined
using Cattell's (1978) scree test. Because a substantial degree of
similarity across subjects (expected intercorrelations) was ex-
pected, an oblique (Promax) rotation was selected.
Table 3 displays the major information resulting from the
four Q-technique factor analyses. The results definitely con-
formed to our prediction for three o f the four Q-factor analyses
(ratings o f desirability, onset age, and closing age). As already
evident in the distribution ofeigenvalues, the rotated factor pat-
terns were found to be dominated by a strong first component,
and factor intercorrelations were high. The factor pattern ob-
tained for developmental increase tended to support our predic-
tion as well, in that (a) the first component was rather strong
and (b) few factors were obtained. However, for developmental
increase, the lower eigenvalue for the first principal component
and the somewhat lower factor intercorrelations indicate that
there was less intersubject consensus about the degree o f devel-
opmental increase than about the other three variables.
Distribution o f Expected Gains and Losses in Adulthood
It should be noted first of all that desirable attributes clearly
outnumbered undesirable attributes in the set o f 148 attributes
expected to show developmental increase over the adult life
span: 106 adjectives yielded a mean desirability rating greater
than 5, 42 adjectives yielded a mean desirability rating smaller
than 5. Thus, overall, developmental expectations were optimis-
tic. To test the hypothesis that with increasing age there would
be a shift in the pattern of desirability of anticipated changes,
we investigated the relationship between ratings of desirability
and onset age. We expected that increasing ages o f onset would
be associated with a decreasing number of developmental gains
 114 J. HECKHAUSEN, R. DIXON, AND P. BALTES

40

.-= 311

~ 211"

~ 10

D Young
7,

Ratings of Developmental Increase

40"
P

= 30' /z

= 211
L._

~ 10

X~f ~ Young
t ~
0
1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9
Ratings of Desirability
Figure 1. Mean frequencies of ratings (1-9) for expected developmental increase (top panel)
and desirability (bottom panel) given by young, middle~ged, and old adults.

and an increasing number of developmental losses. In this study,
developmental gains are defined as expected developmental in-
creases in desirable attributes, whereas developmental losses
pertain to those attributes rated as increasing and undesirable
(see Footnote 2). Figure 3 depicts the correlational relationship
between desirability and expected age of onset. The correlation
was highly negative (r = -.68, p < .01).
It is apparent from Figure 3 that increasing mean ages of on-
set of developmental change were associated with the expecta-
tion of fewer and less desirable changes and more and more un-
desirable changes. Figure 3 also reveals two salient exceptions
to this general pattern. These were the change dimensions wise
(Mdesirability rating = 7.86, Monset age = 54.8) and dignified
(M desirability rating = 6.46, M onset age = 55.0). In these two
instances, we expected positive developmental changes (gains)
to begin late in adulthood.
Expected onset age, however, represents only one aspect of
conceptions about timing of perceived gains and losses. Ex-
pected closing ages of developmental increases need also be con-.
sidered in order to address the issue of the extent of continua-
tion of change throughout adulthood into old age. The relation-
ship between desirability and closing ages of developmental
increases is shown in Figure 4.
As can be seen in Figure 4, we also obtained a negative corre-
 GAINS AND LOSSES IN DEVELOPMENT 1 15

Figure2. Mean frequency of expected onset and closing ages (20 to 90 years)
given by young, middle-aged, and old adults.

lation between ratings of desirability and expected dosing age opmental gains for attributes such as experienced' well-read,
(r = -.28, p < .01). It was, although significant, lower than the mentally healthy, friendly, and honest extends into the seventies
negative correlation between ratings of desirability and ex- and eighties.
pected onset age. This finding has two implications. First, for To provide an integrated picture about the relative amount
expected onset age, the later the expected closing age, the less of gains (i.e., desirable attributes increasing) and losses (i.e., un-
desirable are the attributes expected to increase. Second, how. desirable attributes increasing) that are expected to exist
ever, it is equally evident that not only undesirable but also throughout the adult life span, Figure 5 summarizes the relative
many desirable changes are expected to continue throughout amount of ongoing gains and losses (i.e., occurring between
adulthood. For example, in addition to the attributes wise and their mean ages of onset and close). Adjectives were split into
dignified, the expected time span for the continuation of devel- desirable (M > 5) and undesirable (M < 5) attributes on the
basis of their average desirability ratings.
As expected, percentages of perceived losses increased across
Table 2
Within- and Between-Age-Group Correlations
Across Item Means Table 3
Eigenvalues of Principal Components, VarianceExplained by
Variable/group Young Middle-aBed Old
Rotated Factors, and Factor Intercorrelations
Developmental increase
Young .84 Intercorrelation
Middle-aged .78 .84 Variance
Old .58 .67 .85 Variable/factor Eisenvalue explained A B C
Desirability
Young .94 Developmental increase
Middle-aged .92 .93 A 25.8 13.40 1.00
Old .84 .90 .94 B 10.4 7.81 .36 1.00
Onset Age C 4.47 7.50 .12 .39 1.00
Young .88 Desirability
Middle-aged .90 .91 A 78.21 9.10 1.00
Old .86 .90 .91 B 2.99 6.76 .71 1.00
Closing age C 2.15 4.41 .71 .69 1.00
Young .83 Onset age
Middle-aged .83 .91 A 39.81 20.81 1.00
Old .73 .81 .78 B 4.79 5.48 .58 1.00
Closing age
Note. Within-age-group correlations are calculated for two randomly A 28.46 18.97 1.00
split subsamplcs of the respective age group. B 5.73 6.54 .41 1.00
116 J. HECKHAUSEN, R. DIXON, AND P. BALTES

very desir.9
thinkingclearly experienced
8 "m . " ' ~ mm~mmlm -. 1 1 ~ U nrelaxed mmwi~
• •
• • dFmm_ m m
7 • • mm m ~ imlm • • •
• • • • mm mealm
• • mdi~fied
• •
• • • mCarefid
6" • • •
• •
curious • sk~.pticml•
proud •
mcomewmive

nm •
0
4 • •
• •
• •
nmermlisfic• • • mcautious
3. ~ b ) •
• •
2"
~ • •
,I"" ,&°'s~'f~
Ir = ..OS i moody m • • •
• ~it~r
~ery umknL 1 | | m m

20 3O

Expected Onset Age

Figure 3. Mean ratings of desirability and expected onset age for 148 change-sensitive attributes.

the adult life span. However, even up to age 90, about 20% of Adult Age Differences in Differentiation of
the expected changes were considered as gains. The insert in Views on Development
Figure 5 presents data pertaining to the absolute (rather than
proportional) number of perceived changes. The figure reveals Our third hypothesis involved the question of whether sub-
that perceived developmental gains greatly outnumber per- jeers of different adult ages differ in the richness and degree of
ceived losses throughout adulthood, with the exception only of differentiation of their knowledge about life-span development.
very advanced age (beyond 80), when more losses than gains We expected the older adults to hold dwelopment-related be-
are expected. liefs that are greater in number and more differentiated in the

very desir. 9 memallymhealthy

dear-fldnkin~
n ~ l .
adventurous_ imI mm fmqm miii mm-i[iimaikT-mai-
mmmmimtmm mwise
• • mmm •__ms'- • ••
• mm mb ~im m m mUm • m'nm
• ~m m! mm • • •
• • mm •
mR • mdignified
mm I l l ~ ~onomical
6

s • religious
0 mmconservativc
4 ._we.__. • • formal • mm~omlistic

materialistic • • • • BSIOw

• eI
oi~tinate • •
2
ir=.~i i " i ii
•
•
•
I i
it

ibiUer
fm
0 ~ |

veryunde~1 e e

60 70 80 90
Expected Closing Age
Figure 4. Mean ratings of desirability and expected closing age for 148 change-sensitive attributes.
 GAINS AND LOSSES IN DEVELOPMENT 117

100
Gains
90

80

70 3O 4O ~ M 7O ~ gO

A~

60
.=.
50
Gains
40

30

20

10

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Age
Figure5. Quantitative relation of gains and losses across the adult life span;
Percentages and absolute numbers (insert).

temporal dimension of expected change. This issue was ap-
proached in two ways. First, we examined the sheer number of
items that were rated as change-sensitive (measured as expected
developmental increase) by the different groups. Second, we ex-
plored the degree of differentiation reflected in the timing esti-
mates (age of onset and close) of developmental change given by
the three age groups.
Number of change-sensitive items. Do subjects of different
ages endorse different numbers of change-sensitive (i.e., rated as
becoming stronger, more common, or both) items? To examine
this question, we identified the number of attributes for each age
group passing a certain criterion of change-sensitivity defined as
follows: The expected developmental increase of the attribute
was rated greater than 5 (i.e., medium) by at least 50% of the
subjects in the respective age group. A total of 163 attributes
passed this criterion.
Figure 6 depicts the proportion of attributes passing the crite-
rion for each age group and the overlap between age groups. As
can be seen, there is a fair degree of consensus (see pie segments
for overlap between young, middle-aged, and old adults). How-
ever, there also are age differences. The oldest group contributed
by far the largest share to this pool. The younger the subjects
were, the fewer attributes they endorsed as being subject to de-
velopmental increase during adulthood (63 items for the young
adults, l 13 items for the middle-aged adults, and 136 items for
the old adults).
Chi-square comparisons between the numbers of attributes
endorsed as change-sensitive (that is, perceived to increase) by
the three age groups revealed significant differences between the
young and the middle-aged adults, overall, x2(2, N = 112) =
26.48, p <.01; for young versus middle, x 2( 1, N = 75 ) = 14.23,
p < .01, and for the young and the old adults, x2(l, N = 77) =
26.78, p < .01. The difference between the number of change-
sensitive attributes given by the middle-aged and by the old
adults did not reach significance (for middle vs. old), x2(1, N =
77) = 2.11, p < .10, although the direction of difference sug-
gested a richer set of change-sensitive attributes for the oldest
age group. In addition, a univariate analysis of variance (AN-
OVA) was carried out on the basis of the number of attributes
associated with at least medium increase by a given subject. The
118 J. HECKHAUSEN, R. DIXON, AND P. BALTES
Figure6. Attributes perceived as undergoing strong developmental increase
by young, middle-ased, and old adults.
age effect reached significance,/7(2, 111) = 5.09, p < .01. Fol-
low-up tests revealed that the young adults endorsed fewer attri-
butes as change-sensitive than the middle-aged and old adults,
t(109) = 3.08, p < .01. These findings suggest that as people
move from young adulthood to middle-age their expectations
about ehanges during adulthood increase in number (richness).
Between the young adult and middle adult years, a conception
about development emerges that involves more and more psy-
chological (personality, social, and intellectual) features.
Use of age scale (onset and closing age). Another feature of
richness is the degree of differentiation in expectations about
the timing of developmental changes. This feature might be re-
flected in the extent to which the age scale is used when making
judgments about expected ages of onset and close. We expected
old adults to make more use of the full range of the age scale.
Figure 2 shows the mean frequencies of ratings for onset and
closing age given by young, middle-aged, and old adults. Uni-
variate ANOVASwere performed for each age level (20, 30 . . . .
90) of onset and closing ages, respectively. Significant effects of
age level were obtained for the onset ages of 20, F(2, 111) =
4.62, p < .05, and 40, F(2, l 11) = 7.82p < .01, and the closing
ages of 70, F(2, 111) = 5.43, p < .01, 80, F(2, 111) = 29.05,
p < .01, and 90, F(2, 111) = 2.96, p = .056. As can be seen in
Figure 2, the young adults used the extremes of the scale--that
is, 20 for onset age, t(l) ffi 2.92, p < .01, and 90 for closing age,
t(3) = 2.37, p < .05--more frequently than the middle-aged and
old adults. The middle-aged and old adults endorsed 40 as an
expected onset age more frequently than the young adults,
t(5) ffi 3.83, p < .01. In addition, the old and middle-aged sub-
jeets gave the seventies as an expected closing age more fre-
quently than the young adults, t(1) = 3.66, p < .01. Finally, it is
clearly the oldest age group that endorsed the expected dosing
age of 80 most frequently when compared with the young and
the middle-aged adults, t(l) ffi 5.91, p < .01. For age 80, the
middle-aged adults also expressed richer expectations than the
young adults, t(3) = 3.09, p < .05.
The general pattern of these findings suggests that older adults
use the age scale in finer steps than the other age groups, espe-
cially when it comes to the expected timing of developmental
change in advanced age. The middle-aged subjects,as expected,
take an intermediate position.
Discussion
In the following section, we first discuss the results as they
pertain to the three predictions guiding the design of this study.
We subsequently examine possible limitationsand offersugges-
tions for future research.
Predictions
Our first prediction was that, because of the common influ-
ence of age grading in a given society, individuals of different
ages would hold very similar beliefs about development in
adulthood. In order to evaluate this hypothesis, we examined
interage and intersubject consensus via two statistical ap-
proaches (correlations of item means within and between age
groups and Q-technique factor analysis). Findings obtained us-
 GAINS AND LOSSES IN DEVELOPMENT
ing these two approaches converge in supporting the prediction
of a generally high consensus about the nature of expected
change during adulthood, although, as discussed below, some
age-related differences were also found.
The young, middle-aged, and old adults shared a substantial
set of beliefs about development throughout adulthood (see Ta-
bles 3 and 4 and Figure 1). These common development-related
beliefs pertain to expectations about the (a) extent of develop-
mental increases (as an index of change sensitivity) in psycho-
logical attributes, (b) desirability of such changes, and (c) age-
related timing (onset and closing ages) of expected developmen-
tal changes.
Such consensus in beliefs within and across adult age groups
probably reflects the shared impact of socialization and age
stratification in a given society, providing common constraints
on developmental timetables, opportunity structures, and nor-
mative values. The present finding of much intersubject consen-
sus contributes to previous research on age norms (e.g., Neu-
garten et al., 1965) not only in that our subjects agreed with
respect to a restricted set of stereotype-like expectations about
adult life changes, but also in that consensus in beliefs was ob-
served for a wide variety of specific psychological attributes.
These attributes covered a large part of the spectrum usually
addressed in personality research.
Our second prediction was that development-related beliefs
about different segments of the adult life span would vary in
terms of the overall proportion of desirable and undesirable
characteristics of adult development (Baltes, 1987). Specifically,
we had hypothesized an increasingly larger proportion of ex-
pected losses (i.e., undesirable attributes increasing) and fewer
expected gains (i.e., desirable attributes increasing) to be associ-
ated with older ages. At the same time, we had predicted that
some perceived gains would continue to exist even in old age
(contrary to a generally negative aging stereotype). These pre-
dictions were generally supported by the findings (see Figure 5).
Our findings suggest, then, that young, middle-aged, and old
adults' beliefs about development throughout adulthood are
not adequately reflected by a unidirectional model of aging. In-
stead, although in the context of an overall negative view of
aging, adult subjects at all age levels expected multidirectional,
that is desirable as well as undesirable, change to begin or at
least continue in all segments of the adult life span, including
old age. It should be noted that in terms of the absolute number
of attributes (insert in Figure 5), expected gains greatly out-
numbered expected losses almost throughout adulthood.
Hence, in general the adults expressed a fair degree of optimism
about development throughout adulthood and into old age.
It seems important to note that in this study positive views
of aging were not elicited explicitly as in previous research
(Mueller, Wonderlich, & Dugan, 1986; Rothbaum, 1983), but
produced spontaneously by the subjects. Positive views of aging
have also been found in previous research on self-reports of cog-
nitive change containing elements of growth (e.g., vocabulary)
as well as decline (e.g., memory) (Mason & Rebok, 1984; Wil-
liams et al., 1983). Moreover, some models of life-span develop-
ment emphasize the joint existence of growth and decline in
intellectual aging, such as is implied in the distinct age trajecto-
ries for fluid and crystallized intelligence (Baltes, 1987; Horn,
1970; Perlmutter, in press).
119
Our third prediction concerned age differences in the degree
of elaboration (i.e., richness and differentiation) ofbefiefs about
development during the adult life span. This prediction also re-
ceived support in the context of a baseline of considerable inter-
subject consensus. It is significant that the largest interage group
differences, when compared with a baseline of within-age-
group consensus, were found for the comparisons of the young
and the old adults--the two age groups differing most in terms
of age and thus life-span experience--for the variables develop-
mental increase and expected onset and closing age. Appar-
ently, as opposed to social desirability, an early socialized and
thus highly normative system of values, estimates of life-span
changeability, and their timings are influenced by accumulated
experience and knowledge across the life span. First, when com-
pared with the young adults, the middie-aged and old adults
viewed more attributes as subject to developmental increases
(i.e., to be change-sensitive; see Figure 6). Second, older adults
seemed to use the entire range of the age scale in a more refined
manner especially when reporting their beliefs about the age of
closing of expected developmental changes (see Figure 2). Youn-
ger adults, more than middle-aged and older adults, tended to
endorse extreme ages for expected onset and expected close of
change. Thus, the younger adults endorsed more uniform tim-
ing expectations across developmental dimensions, whereas the
older adult groups expressed more attribute-specific and thus
more differentiated expectations.
These two findings on the number of changing attributes re-
ported and on the use of the age scale point consistently in the
direction that the middle-aged and older adults exceeded the
younger adults in terms of the degree of elaboration of beliefs.
At increasing age levels, adults (a) seemed to view more and
more psychological (personality, social, and intellectual) fea-
tures as subject to developmental increases, (b) had more spe-
cific views on the timing of these changes, and thus (c) viewed
adult development as increasingly multifaceted. We interpret
this finding of increased richness and differentiation ofdevelop-
ment-related beliefs in the older adults as an index of a continu-
ing evolution of the knowledge system that adults acquire about
the nature of life-span development. Moreover, increased rich-
ness and differentiation can be interpreted as an instance of cog-
nitive growth, if one assumes a certain criterion of veridicality;
namely, that it reflects the substantial variation in terms of do-
main, direction, and timing of change repeatedly demonstrated
in life-span developmental research when "objective" measures
of the aging of mind, personality, and social behavior were used
(Baltes, 1987).
Limitations and Suggestionsfor Research
When evaluating the validity of the present data, we need to
acknowledge several limitations before suggesting lines of fu-
ture research. The first limitation concerns the composition of
the samples used. The study was cross-sectional in design;
moreover, it used samples biased toward the higher end of the
educational and social status spectrum. Cross-sectional age
differences represent a confound between age and cohort effects
(Baltes, 1968; Schaie, 1965), and one can only speculate about
their relative importance in the present data. As to the positive
educational and status bias, this selection is optimal for maxi-
120 J. HECKHAUSEN, R. DIXON, AND P. BALTES
mizing the likelihood of tapping elaborated belief systems in all
three age groups. However, further studies should investigate
whether similar patterns of responses would be obtained with
more heterogeneous samples.
A second limitation concerns the instructional method used
in arriving at beliefs about gains and losses. The instruction
aimed at capturing development-sensitive attributes was re-
stricted to judgments of developmental increase, that is, attri-
butes that would "become stronger, more common, or both"
with age. It seems important to ask whether other instructions
would yield similar outcomes. We would suggest that alternative
instructions be used in future research, for example, "which
attributes become weaker, less common, or both?" Such an ap-
proach would permit not only a check on method variance but
might also reveal an even larger set of beliefs about potential
gains and losses (see Footnote 2). In addition, our instructional
method was geared toward judging development for "people in
general:' It seems likely that such an instruction would tend to
elicit stereotypical conceptions. It would be interesting to see
whether expectations about one's own development would yield
a different picture.
A third limitation concerns the nature of the mental repre-
sentations associated with the beliefs studied. Our findings are
based on attribute-specific responses. We do not know, however,
how the mental representations are organized that were genera-
five of the responses obtained. Other avenues, such as prototyp-
icafity analysis (Cantor & Mischel, 1977), might provide more
insight into the way that the beliefs studied are organized and
structured.
Finally, there are two types of questions about the anteced-
ents and consequences of the beliefs studied. First, it seems im-
portant to search for the developmental antecedents of the be-
fiefs, which we have assumed to lie primarily in the societal
structuring of socialization (Dannefer, 1984). In this search, it
would also seem useful to consider the nature and origin ofin-
terindividual differences in the expression of the beliefs about
life-span development. Although the gender variable did not ap-
pear to be a powerful interindividual difference factor in the
present data, others such as social class and ethnicity might play
a more powerful role. In this context one could also consider a
variation of instruction, such as to ask about the subjects' gen-
der-specific, social-class-specific, and personal expectations.
Second, we are equally interested in exploring whether and how
the beliefs function as organizers and forces determining future
action. Individuals may function as producers of their own de-
velopment (Brandtslfidter, 1984; Lerner & Buseh-Rossnagel,
1981), and beliefs about the future are assumed to be major
regulators of current behavior (Bandura, 1986). The beliefs
about gains and losses studied in the present work may well in-
fluence whether this is the case and, if so, which actions are used
when people attempt to shape their own development.
References
Anderson, N. H. (1958). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait
words. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog£, 9, 272-279.
Baltes, P. B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the
study of age and generation effects. Human Development, 11. 145-
171.
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental
psychology:On the dynamics between growth and decline. Deve/op-
mental Psychology, 23, 611-626.
Baltes, P. B., & Kliegi, R. (1986). On the dynamics between growth arid
decline in the aging of intelligence and memory. In K. Pock, H. J.
Freund, & H. G~inshirt (Eds.), Neurology(pp. 1-33). Heidelberg, Fed-
eral Republic of G-ermany:Springer-Verlag.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hail.
Brandtst~ter, J. (1984). Personal and social control over development:
Some implications of an action perspective in life-span developmental
psychology.In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span develop-
ment and behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 1-32). New York:Academic Press.
Brim, O. G., Jr., & Wheeler, S. (Eds.). (1966). Socialization after child-
hood: Two essays. New York:Wiley.
Canto~ N., & Mischel, W. (1977). Traits as prototypes: Effectson recog-
nition memory. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,, 35, 38-
48.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use offactor analysis in behavioral
and life sciences. New York: Plenum Press.
Dannefer, D. (1984). Adult development and social theory: A paradig-
matic reappraisal. American Sociological Review, 49, 100-116.
Denney, N. W. (1984). A model ofeognitive development across the life-
span. Developmental Review, 4, 171-191.
Dixon, R. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1986). Toward life-span research on the
functions and pragmatics of intelligence. In R. J. Sternb~g & R. K.
Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of compe.
fence in the everyday word(pp. 203-235). Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Featherman, D. L. (1986). Biography, society, and history: Individual
development as a population process. In A. B. Scxensen, E Weinert,
& L. Sherrod (Eds.), Human development and the life course: Multi-
disciplinary perspectives (pp. 99-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Featherman, D. L., & Lerne~ R. M. (1985). Ontogenesis and sociogen-
esis: Problematics for theory and research about development and
socialization across the life span. American Sociological Review,, 50,
659-679.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Gough, H. G. (1960). The adjective checklist as a personality assess-
ment research technique. PsychologicalReports, 6, 107-122.
Green, S. (1981). Attitudes and perceptions about the elderly: Current
and future perspectives. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 13, 99-119.
Hagestad, G. O., & Neugarten, B. L. (1985). Age and the life course. In
R. H. Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social
sciences (2nd ed., pp. 35-61). New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hamburg- Wechsler Intelligenztest fiir Erwachsene ( 1955). [Hamburg-
Wechsler test of intelli~ce for adults]. PsychologischesInstitut tier
Universitiit Hamburg. Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber.
Harris, L. (1975). The myth and reality of aging in America. Wasldng.
ton, DC: National Council on the Aging.
Heckhausen, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Adults'judgments about the con-
trollability of expected psychological changes over adulthood and old
age. Manuscript submitted for publication, Max Planck Institute for
Human Development and Education, Berlin.
Horn, J. (1970). Organization of data on life-span development of hu-
man abilities. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span develop-
mental psychology: Research and theory (pp. 423--466). New York:
Academic Press.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982). Dynamic development and mature auton-
omy: A theoretical prologue, Human Development, 25, 141-161.
Lemer, R. M., & Busch-Rossna~l, N. A. (Eds.). (1981). Individuals
as producers of their development:A life-span perspective. New York:
Academic Press.
Mason, C. F., & Rebok, G. W. (1984). Psychologists' self perceptions of
 GAINS AND LOSSES IN DEVELOPMENT
their intellectual aging. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 7, 255-266.
McTavish, D. (1971). Perceptions of old people: A review of research
methodologies and findings. Gerontologist, 11, 90-101.
Muelle~ J. H., Wonderlich, S., & Dugan, K. (1986). Self-referent pro-
cessing of age-specific material. Psychology andAging, 1, 293-299.
Neugarten, B. L., Moore, J. W., & Lowe, J. C. (1965). Age norms, age
constraints, and adult socialization. American Journal of Sociology,
70, 710--717.
Perlmutte~ M. (in press). Continued cognitive potential throughout life.
In J. E. Birren & V. L. Bengtson (Eds.), Theories ofaging: Psychologi-
cal and social perspectives on times, self, and society. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Riley, M. W. (1986). Age strata in social systems. In R. H. Binstock &
E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (2nd ed.,
pp. 369--411). Princeton, N J: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Rothbaum, E (1983). Aging and age stereotypes. Social Cognition, 2,
171-184.
Ryff, C. D. (1984). Personality development from the inside: The subjec-
tive experience of change in adulthood and aging. In P. B. Baltes &
O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (VOl. 6,
pp. 243-279). New York: Academic Press.
Salthouse, T. A. (1985). A theory of cognitive aging. Amsterdam: North
Holland.
Sehale, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental
change. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92-107.
121
Schaie, K. W. (Ed.). (1983). Longitudinal studies of adult psychological
detwlopment. New York: Guilford Press.
Shaver, IC ( 1978-1979). Attributional error and attitudes toward aging:
A view of the NOCA national attitude survey. International Journal
of Aging and Human Development, 9, 101-113.
Smith, J., Dixon, R. A., & BaRes, P. B. (in press). Expertise in life plan-
nin~ A new research approach to investigatingaspects of wisdom. In
M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, E A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.),
Beyond formal operations: 2. Comparisons and applications of ado-
lescent and adult developmental models. New York: Praeger.
Thomae, H. (1979). The concept ofdevelopment and life-span develop-
mental psychology. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span
development and behavior (VOl. 2, pp. 282-312). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Whithourne, S. K. (1986). The psychological construction of the life
span. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychol-
ogy of aging(pp. 594-618). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Williams, S. A., Denney, N. W., & Schadler, M. (1983). Elderly adults'
perception of their own cognitive development during the adult years.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 16, 147-
158.
Received J u n e 15, 1987
Revision received April 5, 1988
Accepted J u n e 3, 1988 •