Explaining age differences in the memory-experience gap.

Emotions and symptoms are often overestimated in retrospective ratings, a phenomenon referred to as the "memory-experience gap." Some research has shown that this gap is less pronounced among older compared to younger adults for self-reported negative affect, but it is not known whether these age differences are evident consistently across domains of well-being and why these age differences emerge. In this study, we examined age differences in the memory-experience gap for emotional (positive and negative affect), social (loneliness), and physical (pain, fatigue) well-being. We also tested four variables that could plausibly explain age differences in the gap: (a) episodic memory and executive functioning, (b) the age-related positivity effect, (c) variability of daily experiences, and (d) socially desirable responding. Adults (n = 477) from three age groups (21-44, 45-64, 65+ years old) participated in a 21-day diary study. Participants completed daily end-of-day ratings and retrospective ratings of the same constructs over different recall periods (3, 7, 14, and 21 days). Results showed that, relative to young and middle-aged adults, older adults had a smaller memory-experience gap for negative affect and loneliness. Lower day-to-day variability partly explained why the gap was smaller for older adults. There was no evidence that the magnitude of the memory-experience gap for positive affect, pain or fatigue depended on age. We recommend that future research considers how variability in daily experiences can impact age differences in retrospective self-reports of well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Influence of ecological momentary assessment study design features on reported willingness to participate and perceptions of potential research studies: an experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: Intensive ambulatory assessment, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA), is increasingly used to capture naturalistic patient-reported outcomes. EMA design features (eg, study duration, prompt frequency) vary widely between studies, but it is not known if such design decisions influence potential subjects' willingness to participate in a study. We hypothesise that intentions to participate will be higher in studies that are less burdensome and have higher reward (eg, compensation). DESIGN: This experimental study examined if four EMA study design features (study duration, prompt frequency, prompt length, compensation) affected intentions to participate in a hypothetical EMA study and participation appraisals (eg, participation effort). Participants were randomly assigned to conditions (reflecting a fully crossed design of the four features, each with two levels). Each condition presented a vignette describing a study (each a unique combination of design features) and asked them to report on likelihood of participating and study appraisals. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of participants (n=600; 46% female, Mage=40.39) were recruited using an online service. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were willingness to participate (No/Yes) and reported participation likelihood (0-100 scale). Secondary outcomes included appraisals of interest, enjoyment, effort, and if the study makes a valuable contribution to science. RESULTS: We examined main effects, and two-way interactions for participation likelihood, across study design features. Overall, reported willingness to participate and participation likelihood were high (89%, M=83.90, respectively). Shorter study duration, fewer prompts, shorter prompts and higher compensation increased willingness to participate and elicited higher participation likelihood (each associated with ~6%-8% increases). Findings suggested that more intensive studies were judged as somewhat less interesting and enjoyable, and requiring more effort. CONCLUSION: Hypotheses were generally supported. Design features influence behavioural intentions to participate in, and appraisals of, EMA studies. Implications for participant recruitment and generalisability, and remaining research questions, are discussed.

Imagine HEALTH: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Guided Imagery Lifestyle Intervention to Improve Obesity-Related Lifestyle Behaviors in Predominantly Latinx Adolescents.

Introduction: To determine the effects of a novel lifestyle intervention combining lifestyle behavioral education with the complementary-integrative health modality of guided imagery (GI) on dietary and physical activity behaviors in adolescents. The primary aim of this study was to determine the incremental effects of the lifestyle education, stress reduction GI (SRGI), and lifestyle behavior GI (LBGI) components of the intervention on the primary outcome of physical activity lifestyle behaviors (sedentary behavior, light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity), as well as dietary intake behaviors, at the completion of the 12-week intervention. The authors hypothesized that the intervention would improve obesity-related lifestyle behaviors. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and thirty-two adolescent participants (aged 14-17 years, sophomore or junior year of high school) were cluster randomized by school into one of four intervention arms: nonintervention Control (C), Lifestyle education (LS), SRGI, and LBGI. After-school intervention sessions were held two (LS) or three (SRGI, LBGI) times weekly for 12 weeks. Physical activity (accelerometry) and dietary intake (multiple diet recalls) outcomes were assessed pre- and postintervention. Primary analysis: intention-to-treat (ITT) mixed-effects modeling with diagonal covariance matrices; secondary analysis: ad hoc subgroup sensitivity analysis using only those participants adherent to protocol. Results: ITT analysis showed that the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) increased in the LS group compared with C (p = 0.02), but there was no additional effect of GI. Among adherent participants, sedentary behavior was decreased stepwise relative to C in SRGI (d = -0.73, p = 0.004) > LBGI (d = -0.59, p = 0.04) > LS (d = -0.41, p = 0.07), and moderate + vigorous physical activity was increased in SRGI (d = 0.58, p = 0.001). Among adherent participants, the HEI was increased in LS and SRGI, and glycemic index reduced in LBGI. Conclusions: While ITT analysis was negative, among adherent participants, the Imagine HEALTH lifestyle intervention improved eating habits, reduced sedentary activity, and increased physical activity, suggesting that GI may amplify the role of lifestyle education alone for some key outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT02088294.