Psychology and Aging
2011, Vol. 26, No. 1, 167–173
© 2010 American Psychological Association
0882-7974/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021124
BRIEF REPORT
Perceptions of the Cognitive Compensation and Interpersonal Enjoyment
Functions of Collaboration Among Middle-Aged and
Older Married Couples
Cynthia A. Berg, Ines Schindler, Timothy W. Smith, Michelle Skinner, and Ryan M. Beveridge
University of Utah
Perceptions of cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment of collaboration were examined in
three hundred middle-aged and older couples who completed measures of perceptions of collaboration,
cognitive ability, marital satisfaction, an errand task and judged their spouse’s affiliation. Older adults
(especially men) endorsed cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment and reported using
collaboration more frequently than middle-aged adults. Greater need for cognitive compensation was
related to lower cognitive ability only for older wives. Greater marital satisfaction was associated with
greater interpersonal enjoyment. These two functions related to reports of more frequent use of
collaboration and perceptions of spousal affiliation in a collaborative task.
Keywords: collaboration, cognitive compensation, enjoyment of collaboration, married couples, marital
quality
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021124.supp
describe that collaboration is central to the marital relationship in
that they work together to make daily decisions (e.g., household
purchases) and solve everyday problems (Berg, Johnson, Meegan
& Strough, 2003). Such joint problem solving may enhance the
support and enjoyment gained from the relationship, especially for
older couples as their focus is on the positive emotional regard that
can be achieved within relationships (Carstensen & Mikels, 2005;
Story et al., 2007). Further, interpersonal enjoyment from collaboration may be enhanced when couples experience greater marital
satisfaction (Berg & Upchurch, 2007; Berg, Wiebe, et al., 2008),
especially for older couples who describe greater satisfaction in
their marriage (Henry, Berg, Smith, & Florsheim, 2007).
These two functions, cognitive and interpersonal, may be important in understanding the frequency of collaboration in daily
problem solving. Implicit within the aging literature (Dixon &
Gould, 1996) is the notion that the frequency of collaboration
during late adulthood is greater primarily to the extent that collaboration is needed cognitively. However, given its interpersonal
function, the frequency of collaboration may also be greater when
it occurs within a satisfied relationship where collaboration is
enjoyed (Beveridge & Berg, 2007; Meegan & Berg, 2002). To
further examine these two functions we tested how they related to
couples’ experience of collaboration as they worked together. The
interpersonal enjoyment function of collaboration may relate to
couples’ experience of each other as more warm and affiliative. In
addition, spouses may see each other as affiliative when they
perceive greater need for collaboration (most likely for older
adults), interpreting the spouse’s behavior as teaching or tutoring.
The primary goal of the present study was to examine whether
adults perceived cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoy-
Collaborative problem solving, where two or more individuals
work together to perform a task, is thought to compensate for
cognitive changes (especially in fluid intelligence) that may occur
in late adulthood (Dixon & Gould, 1996; Johansson, Andersoon, &
Ronnberg, 2000; Martin & Wight, 2008; Strough & Margrett,
2002). Within a long-term marital relationship, collaboration may
also serve an interpersonal function providing support and encouragement as spouses work together. This interpersonal function has
not yet been examined within the aging literature. Older couples
This article was published Online First October 25, 2010.
Cynthia A. Berg, Ines Schindler, Timothy W. Smith, Michelle Skinner,
and Ryan M. Beveridge, Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
Ines Schindler is now in Cluster Languages of Emotion at the Free
University of Berlin. Ryan M. Beveridge is now with the Department of
Psychology at the University of Delaware.
Portions of these data were presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Gerontological Society, November, 2006 in Dallas, Texas. This study was
supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Aging R01 AG 18903
awarded to Timothy W. Smith (PI) and Cynthia A. Berg (co-PI). Ines
Schindler was supported by a research fellowship of the German Research
Foundation (DFG; SCHI 985/1-1). We thank numerous individuals on the
project for their help in collecting data and data management including
Gale Pearce, Lindsey Bloor, Candice Daniels, Melissa Hawkins, Nancy
Henry, Kelly Ko, Kelly Glazer-Baron, Shelly Montgomery, Chrisana
Olson, and Jane Gilbert. We also thank the couples who graciously agreed
to participate in the study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cynthia
A. Berg, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 S. 1530 E.
Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. E-mail: Cynthia.berg@
psych.utah.edu
167
BERG, SCHINDLER, SMITH, SKINNER, AND BEVERIDGE
168
ment as separable functions of collaboration and whether these
functions related to relevant constructs that define their function
(i.e., cognitive compensation related to cognitive performance and
interpersonal enjoyment to marital satisfaction). Age differences
were examined in these functions. We expected that adults would
perceive collaboration as serving a cognitive and interpersonal
function, and that older adults would endorse both functions more
frequently than would middle-aged adults. In addition, the cognitive function was expected to relate to husbands’ and wives’ actual
cognitive abilities more so for older adults and the interpersonal
function to marital satisfaction more so for older adults. We also
examined whether both cognitive compensation and interpersonal
enjoyment functions figure into perceptions of the frequency of
collaboration in daily life and spousal perceptions while performing a collaborative task. The perceived frequency of collaboration
was hypothesized to relate to both the cognitive compensation and
interpersonal enjoyment functions. Finally, the interpersonal function was thought to relate to couples’ perceptions of the affiliative
nature of their spouse’s behavior in a collaborative task.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 146 middle-aged (Wives: M ⫽ 43.9 years old,
SD ⫽ 3.8, range 32–54 years; Husbands: M ⫽ 45.8 years old,
SD ⫽ 4.0, range 37–59 years) and 154 older married couples
(Wives: M ⫽ 62.2 years old, SD ⫽ 4.5, range 50 –71 years;
Husbands: M ⫽ 64.7 years old, SD ⫽ 4.3, range 52–76 years). The
sample was largely Caucasian (Wives 95%, Husbands 96.3%) and
from the greater Salt Lake City area. On average, middle-aged
couples had been married for 18.5 years (SD ⫽ 6.2, range 5–31)
and older couples for 36.4 years (SD ⫽ 10.2, range 5–53).1 This
was the first marriage for 79.5% of middle-aged women and
84.9% of middle-aged men and for 76.0% of older women and
76.0% of older men. Couple eligibility included: 1) married for a
minimum of 5 years; 2) at least one spouse was either between 40
and 50 years old or between 60 and 70 years old; 3) no more than
a 10-year age difference between spouses; 4) were not currently
taking heart or blood pressure medications from a selected list
(primarily Beta-Blockers, Calcium-Blockers, and Antianginals); 5)
body mass index (BMI) of 38 or less; and 6) had English as their
primary language (see Berg et al., 2007 for additional details).
Procedure
Participants were recruited through a survey company, advertisements in newspapers, and flyers and presentations at community programs. The questionnaires analyzed here represent a subset
of those included in the study. No overlap exists between this
paper and other papers based on this dataset. Spouses first completed the Perceptions of Collaboration and Marital Satisfaction
measures independently and then took part in a laboratory session
including the errand running task. In a second laboratory session
the cognitive tasks were administered.
Measures
Perceptions of collaboration questionnaire (PCQ). This
9-item measure assessed wives’ and husbands’ perceptions of
collaboration when solving everyday problems and making decisions on 5-point scales (higher scores indicate stronger agreement).
Based on confirmatory factor analyses (see Results Section), we
averaged three items per construct to form three subscales. Cognitive Compensation (C; ␣Wives ⫽ .57; ␣Husbands ⫽ .61) consisted
of “I make better decisions when my spouse and I work together,”
“I view working together with my spouse as necessary as it is
harder for me to do things by myself,” and “Working together with
my spouse is useful as he/she makes up for things that I don’t do
well.” Interpersonal Enjoyment (E; ␣Wives ⫽ .59; ␣Husbands ⫽ .65)
consisted of “I enjoy the support and encouragement I receive
when I work together with my spouse,” “Solving everyday problems and making decisions together with my spouse brings us
closer together,” and “I dislike getting my spouse’s assistance on
everyday tasks as it makes me feel incompetent” (reverse scored).
Finally, frequency (F; ␣Wives ⫽ .80; ␣Husbands ⫽ .70) of collaboration was measured by “My spouse and I always work together to
deal with really important household decisions,” “Nearly everyday
my spouse and I work together to make everyday decisions,” and
“It is rare for my spouse and I to share tasks and make decisions
together” (reverse scored).
Cognitive measures. Participants completed individually 7
tasks in small groups (see Ko, Berg, Uchino, & Smith, 2007). We
focused on age-sensitive measures of fluid intelligence: Letter and
Pattern Comparison tests of perceptual speed (Salthouse, 1996;
Salthouse & Meinz, 1995) and the PMA Spatial Relations and
Letters Series tests (Thurstone, 1962). Analyses supported that the
tests loaded on a single fluid intelligence factor (see Ko et al.,
2007).
Marital satisfaction was assessed with the Marital Adjustment
Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959), a reliable and valid measure of
marital adjustment (␣ ⫽ .73 for husband, .76 for wives).
Spousal affiliation in an errand running task. Couples
planned a morning of running 13 errands (see Berg et al., 2007).
The Impact Message Inventory (IMI: Schmidt, Wagner, & Kiesler,
1999) assessed participants’ perceptions of their spouse’s behavior
during the task. The IMI was a 32-item abbreviated version of the
original inventory; we focus in the present paper on affiliation
(friendliness vs. hostility). See Henry et al. (2007) for scoring and
reliability.
Analysis Plan
To account for the dependencies between husbands and wives
we analyzed the data at a dyadic level. We established the threefactor structure of the PCQ through confirmatory factor analysis
1
Because of age differences between husbands and wives, some of the
husbands and wives were slightly out of the age range for their age group
(2 women and 17 men were over 50 but their spouse was in the age range
of the middle-aged group, 39 women and 9 husbands were under 60 but
their spouse was in the older age group). For most of the cases the spouse
was only 1 or 2 years away from the age cut-off (e.g., wife was 59 but
husband was 60 –70). Analyses were rerun with these cases removed to
ascertain the effect on results. All results remained the same with one
exception. For the analyses predicting perceptions of cognitive compensation, for wives, the effect of husbands’ fluid intelligence was significant
with wives perceiving greater cognitive compensation when their husband
scored higher on fluid intelligence.
PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATION
(CFA), modeling three factors for each spouse in one analysis and
testing for factorial invariance between age groups and across
husbands and wives. PCQ factors and residual variances of corresponding PCQ items were allowed to correlate between husbands
and wives.
Second, to test associations of the functions of collaboration
with cognition, marital satisfaction, frequency, and affiliation in
the errand task, we conducted multivariate hierarchical linear
modeling with application to matched pairs (HMLM2; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2000). These analyses simultaneously estimated models for husbands and wives and tested for
differences in regression weights across husband and wife (see
Berg et al., 2007).
Results
Dimensions of Collaboration: Confirmatory
Factor Analysis
We established the three-factor structure of the PCQ in both
husbands and wives through CFA. First, we compared the hypothesized six-factor model (three factors per spouse; ␹2 ⫽ 357.86,
df ⫽ 234, CFI ⫽ .92, TLI ⫽ .90, RMSEA ⫽ .06, SRMR ⫽ .06) to
an alternative two-factor model (one overall collaboration factor
per spouse; ␹2 ⫽ 500.39, df ⫽ 272, CFI ⫽ .85, TLI ⫽ .84,
RMSEA ⫽ .08, SRMR ⫽ .08) and found that the six-factor model
fit the data much better, ␹2(38) ⫽ 142.53, p ⬍ .001. Second, we
tested for metric factorial invariance between middle-aged and
older individuals by constraining factor loadings for middle-aged
and older wives to be equal and factor loadings for middle-aged
and older husbands to be equal. Adding this constraint did not
change the model fit, ␹2(12) ⫽ 12.17, ns. Third, we tested for
factorial invariance by constraining factor loadings to be equal for
wives and husbands, which did not change the model fit, ␹2(6) ⫽
6.45, ns. Thus, our analyses confirmed that the selected PCQ items
have the same factor structure in middle-aged and older couples
and in wives and husbands, which justified forming three PCQ
scales for each spouse. Considering the complexity of the model,
the fit was adequate (␹2 ⫽ 376.48, df ⫽ 252, CFI ⫽ .92, TLI ⫽
.90, RMSEA ⫽ .06, SRMR ⫽ .08).2 The variances of the six factors
did not differ significantly between age groups nor did any of the
factor covariances.
Age differences were found in the factor means with older
husbands compared to middle-aged husbands reporting collaborating more for compensation, enjoying collaboration more, and
collaborating more frequently than middle-aged husbands as indicated by estimated factor means significantly different from zero
(z ⫽ 2.3, 4.3, and 3.0, respectively, ps ⬍ .01; factor means for
middle-aged spouses were constrained to zero in the CFA to form
a comparison group). The same pattern emerged for older wives,
who reported greater enjoyment of collaboration (z ⫽ 2.0, p ⬍
.05), with factor means for compensation and frequency marginally higher in old as compared to middle-aged wives (z ⫽ 1.9 and
1.9, ps ⬍ .10).
Predicting Compensation From Cognition and
Enjoyment From Marital Satisfaction
To examine the relationships of cognitive ability with cognitive
compensation and of marital satisfaction with interpersonal enjoy-
169
ment, two HMLM models were constructed. Husbands’ and
wives’ perceptions of collaboration as compensation were predicted from five variables: age group (effect coded ⫺1 ⫽ middleaged, 1 ⫽ older), own and spouse’s fluid intelligence (centered at
its mean separately for husbands and wives), and the interactions
of age group with own and spouse’s fluid intelligence (Aiken &
West, 1991). For husbands’ reports of compensation no significant
effects were found when controlling for age. For wives a significant interaction was found between age group and own cognitive
function [b ⫽ ⫺.14, standard error (SE) ⫽.05, p ⬍ .01, effect
size ⫽ .013]. Simple slopes analyses (conducted with Preacher,
Curran, & Bauer’s, 2003, online calculator) revealed that for older
women lower fluid intelligence was associated with greater perceptions that collaboration served a compensatory function
[t(274) ⫽ ⫺2.14, p ⬍ .05], whereas for middle-aged women there
was no significant slope between fluid intelligence and compensation (see Figure 1). The interaction effect of age and wives’ fluid
intelligence was not significant for husbands’ perceptions of compensation and the test of the significance of the difference between
wives’ and husbands’ coefficients was significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 13.03,
p ⬍ .01.
A similar model including five independent variables was conducted to predict husbands’ and wives’ enjoyment of collaboration
from marital satisfaction and age group. Husbands’ marital satisfaction was predictive of his enjoyment (b ⫽ .31, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍
.01, effect size ⫽ .09) and wives’ satisfaction was predictive of her
enjoyment (b ⫽ .28, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01, effect size ⫽ .06). No
spouse effects on own enjoyment or interactions of age group ⫻
satisfaction were found.
Cognitive and Interpersonal Functions
Predicting Frequency
To test whether these functions predicted the perceived frequency of collaboration, a similar HMLM was used. Husbands’
and wives’ perceptions of collaboration frequency were predicted
from ten independent variables: age group, husband and wife
report of cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment, the
interactions of age group with each reporter’s view of compensation and enjoyment, and own marital satisfaction as a control
variable (as it was important in understanding enjoyment). For
husbands, greater husband marital satisfaction (b ⫽ .20, SE ⫽ .04,
p ⬍ .01, effect size ⫽ .05), husband views of compensation (b ⫽
.13, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01, effect size ⫽ .02) and husband views of
interpersonal enjoyment (b ⫽ .19, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01, effect size ⫽
.03) were associated with greater frequency of collaboration.
Wives’ reports of collaboration frequency were predicted by her
own views of marital satisfaction (b ⫽ .39, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01,
effect size ⫽ .08), cognitive compensation (b ⫽ .16, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍
.01, effect size ⫽ .02), and enjoyment (b ⫽ .19, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01,
effect size ⫽ .02).
2
Details regarding the SEM analyses including parameter estimates for
the CFA can be found in the appendix, which is available online as
supplemental material.
3
We utilized the Pseudo-R2 method recommended by Raudenbush and
Bryk (2002) to estimate effect sizes.
BERG, SCHINDLER, SMITH, SKINNER, AND BEVERIDGE
170
4.4
Wife's Compensation
4.2
4
Middle-Aged
Older
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
L ow
High
Wife's Fluid Intelligence
Figure 1.
Wives’ perceptions of cognitive compensation as a function of age and wives’ fluid intelligence.
Cognitive and Interpersonal Functions and Couples’
Affiliation Within a Collaborative Setting
A final HMLM analysis including ten independent variables
examined whether compensation and enjoyment were predictive of
husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of their spouse’s affiliation
while interacting in the errand running task (when also considering
age group and marital satisfaction). For husbands, when he reported greater marital satisfaction (b ⫽ .41, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .01,
effect size ⫽ .02) and interpersonal enjoyment from collaboration
(b ⫽ .23, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05, effect size ⫽ .003) he also perceived
his wife as more affiliative in the interaction. In addition, a
significant age group ⫻ wife compensation interaction (b ⫽ .19,
SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05, effect size ⫽ .002) revealed that when older
wives perceived greater compensation husbands viewed wives as
more affiliative [simple slopes for older wives t(274) ⫽ 2.79, p ⬍
.01), see Figure 2]. For wives, similarly a significant age group x
wife compensation interaction (b ⫽ .21, SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05, effect
size ⫽ .0004) revealed that when older wives perceived greater
compensation, wives viewed husbands as more affiliative [simple
slopes for older wives, t(274) ⫽ 2.73, p ⬍ .01, see Figure 2].
Wives perceived their spouse as more affiliative when she reported
greater marital satisfaction (b ⫽ .50, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .01, effect
size ⫽ .03) and when she reported greater enjoyment from collaboration (b ⫽ .34, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .01, effect size ⫽ .007).
Discussion
Adults in midlife and later adulthood perceived that collaboration serves an interpersonal function that is separate from its
cognitive compensation function with age differences such that
older men especially perceived that collaboration served more of a
compensation and enjoyment function and reported more frequent
use of collaboration (the trend was similar for women). Greater
perceived cognitive compensation through collaboration was related to lower cognitive ability only for older wives. The interpersonal enjoyment function was related to greater marital satisfaction
for both husbands and wives similarly across age. These two
functions related to greater reported frequency of collaboration to
solve everyday problems. Finally, analyses within a specific collaborative task revealed that cognitive compensation and especially interpersonal enjoyment were associated with greater perceptions of affiliation of one’s spouse.
Cognitive and Interpersonal Functions
of Collaboration
Consistent with collaboration serving a compensation function for older adults (Dixon & Gould, 1996; Meegan & Berg,
2002), results revealed that older husbands endorsed the
cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment function
and reported using collaboration more frequently than did
middle-aged husbands (older wives reported more enjoyment
but only tended in the same direction for compensation and
frequency). The functions of collaboration and its frequency
were strongly endorsed (means of around 4 on a 5-point scale),
however, by both age groups. The age differences in compensation and enjoyment did not remain once cognitive ability
and marital satisfaction (both associated with age) were controlled. These results are only somewhat consistent with the
view in the collaboration literature that its use derives from the
need to compensate for cognitive function (Dixon & Gould,
1996). The link between perceptions of compensation and lower
fluid intelligence was present only among older wives, suggesting that they may be more in tune with their need for collaboration.
In addition to the cognitive function of collaboration, adults
perceived an interpersonal enjoyment function, which was enhanced in marriages of higher quality. The interpersonal function of collaboration has been neglected in the literature, which
focuses nearly exclusively on its role in optimizing (Rogoff,
1998) or compensating for cognitive function (Dixon & Gould,
1996). In close interpersonal relationships such as long-term
marriage, collaboration has been described by couples as a key
factor in what defines their marriage (Berg et al., 2003). Making
PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATION
171
4.4
Husband's View of Wife's Affiliation
4.2
4
3.8
Middle-Aged
Older
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
Low
High
Wife's View of Compensation
Wife's View of Husband s Affiliation
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
Middle-Aged
Older
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
Low
High
Wife's View of Compensation
Figure 2. Husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of spouse’s affiliation in collaborative task as a function of age
and wife’s compensation.
everyday decisions (regarding finances, health, and home repair) as well as solving everyday problems (e.g., household
chores) may build a sense of the couple as a unit (Badr &
Acitelli, 2005) and may contribute to and be a reflection of that
marital satisfaction.
Cognitive and Interpersonal Functions and Frequency
of Collaboration
The perceived frequency of collaboration in couples’ daily lives
was predicted from both the cognitive compensation and interpersonal functions and these relationships did not differ by age. For
both husbands and wives, perceptions of the frequency of use of
collaboration were associated with their own interpersonal enjoyment of collaboration and views of cognitive compensation. These
results strengthen the view that the frequency of collaboration is
greater when spouses enjoy collaboration at an interpersonal level,
consistent with the importance of marital satisfaction in the use of
dyadic coping (Hagedoorn et al., 2000). The fact that only one’s
own perceptions of collaboration as cognitive compensation were
associated with frequency suggest that the frequency with which
collaboration occurs may be driven more by one’s own need for
compensation, rather than a dyadic need.
These functions of collaboration were reflected in individuals’
perceptions of their spouse’s affiliative behavior as couples collaborated, providing a window into how these functions operate
within actual collaborative settings. Perceptions of interpersonal
enjoyment were associated with greater perceptions that one’s
spouse was warm and affiliative and these effects were over and
above the effect of marital satisfaction. As a whole the results
revealed several links among interpersonal enjoyment and marital
satisfaction, couples’ perceptions of the frequency of collaboration, and affiliation in the errand task. The results are consistent
with a process whereby greater marital satisfaction may be re-
BERG, SCHINDLER, SMITH, SKINNER, AND BEVERIDGE
172
flected in greater enjoyment and more proximally in perceptions of
affiliation in collaborative interaction. These warm and affiliative
interactions may contribute to subsequent enhancements in interpersonal enjoyment and marital satisfaction. For husbands’ and
wives’ perceptions of each others’ affiliative behavior, greater
wives’ cognitive compensation was associated with greater perceptions of affiliative behavior. These results suggest that when
older wives perceive greater cognitive need for collaboration,
spouses’ behavior may be perceived as more loving, which could
be due to perceptions of the interaction driven by her greater need
or to the altered nature of the interaction (e.g., more of a teaching
or scaffolding interaction for husbands). Such results may be
restricted to a somewhat normal range of cognitive ability and may
not hold when spouses experience extreme need for compensation
such as in the case of mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s
disease.
The results should be considered together with their limitations.
The relatively young age of our older adult group may have
restricted relationships between cognitive ability and cognitive
compensation. Although our previous work indicates that older
adults differed from middle-aged adults in cognitive ability (Berg
et al., 2007), our older adult group was in their 60s, now considered a young-old sample (Baltes & Smith, 2003). Research with
adults of more advanced age who are experiencing greater
limits in cognition will be useful in clarifying relationships
between cognition and cognitive compensation. Our results are
limited by our largely Caucasian sample. Collaboration may be
more frequent and serve interpersonal functions in cultures that
are more interdependent (Latino, Asian; Berg & Upchurch,
2007). The results are limited, somewhat, by the relative shortness of the PCQ, which likely resulted in the low reliability of
some subscales. Additional work is in progress to improve the
measure’s reliability. The cross-sectional nature of our data
cannot address directions of effects between marital satisfaction, cognitive ability, and the cognitive and interpersonal functions of collaboration. These relationships are likely dynamic
and transactional such that the interpersonal function both derives from high marital satisfaction, provides a lens through
which interactions are viewed in collaboration, and enhances
subsequent marital satisfaction.
In addition to the cognitive compensation function of collaboration that is so frequently emphasized in the aging literature,
collaboration has an important interpersonal component that may
derive from the overall quality of the relationship as well as affect
the frequency of collaboration. Both functions are involved in the
perceived frequency of collaboration during middle-aged and
older adulthood and in how it is experienced in collaborative
tasks. Greater attention to the interpersonal enjoyment function
may facilitate collaboration’s use in daily decision making and
solving everyday problems (Strough, Cheng, & Swenson,
2002).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Badr, H., & Acitelli, L. K. (2005). Dyadic adjustment in chronic illness:
Does relationship talk matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 465–
469. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.465
Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2003). New frontiers in the future of aging: From
successful aging of the young old to the dilemmas of the fourth age.
Gerontology, 49, 123–135. doi:10.1159/000067946
Berg, C. A., Johnson, M. M. S., Meegan, S. P., & Strough, J. (2003). Collaborative
problem-solving interaction in young and old married couples. Discourse Processes, 35, 33–58. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3501_2
Berg, C. A., Smith, T. W., Ko, K., Beveridge, R., Story, N., Henry, N., . . .
Glazer, K. (2007). Task control and cognitive abilities of self and spouse
in collaboration in middle-aged and older couples. Psychology and
Aging, 22, 420 – 427. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.420
Berg, C. A., & Upchurch, R. (2007). A developmental-contextual model of
couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 920 –954. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920
Berg, C. A., Wiebe, D. J., Bloor, L., Butner, J., Bradstreet, C., Upchurch,
R., . . . Patton, G. (2008). Collaborative coping and daily mood in
couples dealing with prostate cancer. Psychology and Aging, 23, 505–
516. doi:10.1037/a0012687
Beveridge, R. M., & Berg, C. A. (2007). Parent-adolescent collaboration:
An interpersonal model for understanding optimal interactions. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 10, 25–52. doi:10.1007/s10567006-0015-z
Carstensen, L. L., & Mikels, J. A. (2005). At the intersection of emotion
and cognition: Aging and the positivity effect. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 117–121. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005
.00348.x
Dixon, R. A., & Gould, O. N. (1996). Adults telling and retelling stories
collaboratively. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive
minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp.
221–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hagedoorn, M., Kuijer, R. G., Buunk, B. P., DeJong, G. M., Wobbes, T.,
& Sanderman, R. (2000). Marital satisfaction in patients with cancer:
Does support from intimate partners benefit those who need it the most?
Health Psychology, 19, 274 –282. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.19.3.274
Henry, N. J., Berg, C. A., Smith, T. W., & Florsheim, P. (2007). Positive
and negative relationship characteristics and their association with marital satisfaction in middle-aged and older couples. Psychology and
Aging, 22, 428 – 441. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.428
Johansson, O., Andersson, J., & Ronnberg, J. (2000). Do elderly couples
have a better prospective memory than other elderly people when they
collaborate? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 121–133. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200003/04)14:2⬍121::AID-ACP626⬎
3.0.CO;2-A
Ko, K. J., Berg, C. A., Uchino, B., & Smith, T. W. (2007). Profiles of
successful aging in middle-aged and older married couples. Psychology
and Aging, 22, 705–718. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.705
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and
prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family
Living, 21, 251–255. doi:10.2307/348022
Martin, M., & Wight, M. (2008). Dyadic cognition in old age: Paradigms,
findings, and directions. In S. M. Hofer & D. F. Alwin (Eds.), Handbook
of cognitive aging: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 629 – 646). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meegan, S. P., & Berg, C. A. (2002). Contexts, functions, forms, and
processes of collaborative everyday problem solving in older adulthood.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 6 –15. doi:
10.1080/01650250143000283
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2003). Simple intercepts,
simple sloes, and regions of significance in MLR 2-Way Interactions.
http://people.ku.edu/⬃preacher/interact/mlr2.htm
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM5:
Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: SSI.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon
PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATION
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 2: Cognition, perception,
and language. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Salthouse, T. A. (1996). General and specific speed mediation of adult age
differences in memory. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences, 51, P30 –P42.
Salthouse, T. A., & Meinz, E. J. (1995). Aging, inhibition, working
memory, and speed. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Science, 50,
P297–P306.
Schmidt, J. A., Wagner, C. C., & Kiesler, D. J. (1999). Psychometric and
circumplex properties of the octant scale Impact Message Inventory
(IMI-C): A structural evaluation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46,
325–334. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.325
Story, T. N., Berg, C. A., Smith, T. W., Beveridge, R., Henry, N. J. M., &
Pearce, G. (2007). Age, marital satisfaction, and optimism as predictors
of positive sentiment override in middle-aged and older married couples.
Psychology and Aging, 22, 719 –727. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.719
173
Strough, J., Cheng, S., & Swenson, L. M. (2002). Preferences for collaborative and individual everyday problem solving in later adulthood.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 26 –35. doi:
10.1080/01650250143000337
Strough, J., & Margrett, J. (Eds.). (2002). Overview of the special section
on collaborative cognition in later adulthood. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 26, 2–59.
Thurstone, T. G. (1962). Primary mental abilities: Grades 9 –12, 1962
revision. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Received September 4, 2009
Revision received July 23, 2010
Accepted August 6, 2010 䡲
Members of Underrepresented Groups:
Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.
Please note the following important points:
• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.
• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.
• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.
• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.