Cohort analysis reveals lifestyle-mediated pathways connect education and personality to late-life cognition, indicating demographic and regional variations in cognitive reserve.
Cognitive decline in later life is associated with interrelated factors, including education and personality traits. Prior research suggests that lifestyle may act as a mediator linking these factors to cognitive functioning, contributing to cognitive reserve and helping preserve cognitive abilities in older age. This study examined whether lifestyle-mediated associations between education, personality traits, and cognitive functioning in older adulthood differ across gender, age groups, and European regions. The analysis used data from Waves 7 and 8 of the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), comprising 16,205 adults aged 65 to 100 from 16 European countries. Cognitive functioning was measured with eight tasks assessing episodic memory, working memory, attention, and executive functioning. Lifestyle indicators included leisure activities, computer and internet use, and alcohol consumption. Multigroup structural equation modeling tested whether the mediation model was invariant across groups (gender, age group, European region). Mediation pathways differed by gender, age, and region, although many associations were small. Openness to Experience was more strongly associated with an active lifestyle in men, while education and Openness to Experience showed stronger associations with cognition in women. Among younger-old adults (65–84), Openness showed a stronger positive association with cognition, whereas Agreeableness showed a negative association. Education was most strongly associated with lifestyle and cognition in Eastern and Southern Europe. Across models, lifestyle showed the strongest association with cognitive functioning. These findings highlight the relevance of lifestyle within the proposed mediation model and suggest that these associations vary across demographic and regional contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ivleva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: