I need help responding to this discussion boards post by:

Aisha Akram

DB 2

The analysis of theories of aging reveals the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon. Biological theories focus on genetic and cellular processes but overlook individual variability, while psychosocial theories emphasize social and emotional factors but disregard structural inequalities. The life course perspective integrates both biological and psychosocial factors but may oversimplify aging trajectories and successful aging theory promotes proactive strategies but overlooks systemic barriers. Proposing a study on socioeconomic disparities in aging trajectories underscores the need for holistic approaches to understand and address aging comprehensively. Understanding aging requires a nuanced perspective that acknowledges the interplay between biological, psychosocial, and structural factors. By critically evaluating existing theories and proposing comprehensive studies, researchers can advance our understanding of aging and develop more inclusive strategies for promoting healthy aging across diverse populations.

Biological Theories: The Biological Theory of Aging suggests that biological processes like genetic mutations, cellular damage, and hormonal changes primarily drive aging. While supported by evidence such as oxidative stress and telomere shortening's role in cellular aging, this theory struggles to account for the significant variability in aging observed among individuals, as evidenced by differences in aging trajectories even among identical twins who share the same genetic makeup.

Psychosocial Theories: Psychosocial theories, like the Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST), highlight the significance of social and emotional factors in aging, suggesting that individuals prioritize meaningful relationships over acquiring new knowledge as they age. While SST provides valuable insights into adaptive aging behaviors, it tends to neglect the influence of structural inequalities and socioeconomic disparities on the aging process.

Life Course Perspective: The Life Course Perspective integrates biological and psychosocial factors, highlighting the importance of historical context, life events, and social roles in shaping individuals' trajectories over their lifespan. It acknowledges that aging is not a uniform process but is influenced by intersecting factors like gender, race, and socioeconomic status.

Successful Aging Theory: Successful Aging Theory suggests that maintaining physical health, cognitive function, and active engagement with life leads to successful aging. While emphasizing proactive strategies for well-being, it risks stigmatizing individuals who diverge from normative aging paths and overlooks structural barriers hindering access to resources for marginalized groups, affecting their ability to age successfully.

Overall, while various theories of aging offer valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon, none provide a comprehensive explanation in isolation. By critically evaluating these theories and integrating diverse perspectives, researchers can advance our understanding of aging and develop more holistic approaches to promoting healthy aging for all individuals.

D'Adriah Mendez

Theories in Aging

Hello everyone,

I think the theories that work best are the lifespan perspective coupled with the selective optimization comprehension approach. The normative age graded influences are effective as well and the theory that utilizes biological, environmental, sociocultural, and economic factors as components that contribute to the development as we age as stated in the forces of development. Lastly, the idea of plasticity that we are able to learn and improve with practice as well as the belief of context specific development that differences in development are wrapped up with the context that they occur (Cavanaugh & Blanchard-Fields, 2019). I think these are best particularly because they encompass a wide range of similarities between us while taking into consideration the differences that are brought about by culture and lifestyle in different parts of the world. I think that the universal development belief falls short. Although we may physically go through certain stages in our development as humans it does not leave much room for the variability that comes with different contexts that may affect our mental capacities and in some ways therefore our physical capacities. It also leaves out differences in lifestyle that affect whether or not certain physical changes happen earlier or later in life. For example in one culture the standard or average age that a person begins to slow down in their physical activity might be 60 years old but in another culture the standard age at which a person starts to noticeably slow down is 80 years old. In a video exploring cultures in different places on an island off the coast of Japan it is normal for people to reach the age of 100 and surpassed that and the lady that was interviewed she had just turned 100 years old and she still did many activities by herself she cooked on her own showered on her own tended to responsibilities in her house and had no assistance in any of her daily tasks (Binsky, 2023). So for them it is normal to continue to move about well into senior years whereas in America that is not normal. Using a longitudinal design, I would study a group of people over the span of a decade to see how they actively select the ability that they feel is essential to function and how their focus minimizes from many things to a limited amount of things and what strategies if any are used as workarounds to compensate for any declines (Cavanaugh & Blanchard-Fields, 2019).

Cavanaugh, J.C. & Blachard-Fields, F. (2019). Adult Development and Aging. Cengage.

Binsky, D. (2023, January). Exploring the island where people don't die (Okinawa). Www.youtube.com. https://youtu.be/UU-iWa0Hroc?si=F5tgNuhtfn9GQbal

Jessica Pareja

Discussion Board 2- Jessica Pareja

Developmentalists establish that the lifespan perspective is composed of four interactive forces: the biological, the psychological, the sociocultural, and the life-cycle forces which work together to shape us throughout our lives and can help us understand our development process, particularly aging. Based on the reading, I believe that the theories that best explain aging are the nature vs. nurture and the stability-change issue. I feel that the nature vs. nurture theory works best because it explains how both our genetics and our environment play key roles in our constant development throughout the lifespan. Though it is true that our hereditary influences can predispose us for certain characteristics over others, such as the susceptibility to certain diseases, it cannot be pointed out as the determining factor, but rather as a contributor that may be reinforced through our environmental influences, such as our lifestyle throughout our development. I believe in this theory to be the strongest determinant and explanation for the aging process as it accounts for what our tendencies are due to where we come from, as well as for the contributions of our lifestyles that lead us into the aging process.

I also feel that the stability-change issue is a solid theory to explain aging as it explains how the passage of time has affected and changed us to the point of older adult development. Reaching old age is not guaranteed and in many respects, the privilege to develop to that point in our lives is contingent upon the stability we have during our adult lives, as well as the adaptability to change when necessary in order to best accommodate to our circumstances. A great example of how this theory successfully explains our aging is by showing how much of our personality has maintained and provided stability throughout our lives into old age, and how much of it has changed, making the degree of change a developmental reference point (Cavanaugh, 2019). I believe that the universal versus context-specific development theory falls short in explaining aging because it is too generalized and somewhat ambiguous. The intent of this theory is to explain if there is one or several paths of development, but there are no specific stipulations on what denotes different developmental paths, rather it seems that anything is possible as all differences are variations in development and so does not allow room for general statements about aging (Cavanaugh, 2019).

In using the scientific method to perform an appropriate study on aging, a scientist using the nature vs. nurture theory could set up a study by firstly establishing which type of design which best address their topic of interest. In this case a correlational design would be the best way to analyze the impact of effect the nature aspect has on aging as one of the variables, as well as the impact of nurture or environment on the aging process, as another one of the variables. Once the data has been gathered by measuring the impact of nature and the impact of nurture for each person involved in the study, then valuable conclusions can be drawn about the strength and impact of each one and how they relate to each other (Cavanaugh, 2019).

References

Cavanaugh, J.C. & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2019) Adult Development and Aging. Cengage.