Successful Aging 2.0: Conceptual Expansions for the 21st Century.

THE MacArthur model of successful aging encompasses three principal components: low risk of disease and disease-related disability; maintenance of high mental and physical function; and continued engagement with life, which includes relations with others and productive activity, either paid or volunteered. In the 27 years since we first articulated the core principles of the model, it has received sustained attention in gerontological theory, empirical research, and practice (Rowe & Kahn, 1987, 1997, 1998). Thousands of articles have been written on the concept and its components, and more than 100 variations of the original model have been proposed. Some of these variations call for a greater emphasis on social factors that may influence the capacity for successful aging (Riley, 1999); others propose a more subjective definition of the concept itself and greater attention to individuals’ perceptions of their own aging and the effects of earlier life experiences. The importance of antecedent events as determinants of successful aging is emphasized in the suggestion that the model incorporate a life-course perspective. The model’s far reach and impact also is reflected in the establishment of successful aging centers at several universities, including Rowan University in New Jersey, the University of Toledo in Ohio, and California State University in Fullerton. The model is not without its critics, however. In fact, the number and variety of critiques has become so large that Martinson and Berridge (2015, 4), in a special issue of The Gerontologist dedicated to the concept of successful aging, divided them into four distinct categories. The missing voices critique, which accounted for 45% of published critiques, calls for greater consideration of subjective components of successful aging; add and stir (25%) calls for other expansions to the model; hard hitting (20%), demands a more inclusive definition of successful aging and avoidance of “stigma and discrimination” of those not aging well; and new frames and names (10%), which attempts to correct or replace a perceived Western cultural bias in the MacArthur model. Masoro’s (2001) early condemnation of the MacArthur model as misleading and deserving of abandonment is a minority view. Rachel Pruchno, editor-in -chief of the Gerontologist, calls for developing consensus about what successful aging is and how it should be measured by building on current empirical and theoretical work. (Pruchno, 2015). In the same issue Stowe and Cooney (2015) conclude that “the popularity of the model in the mainstream literature and its extensive use in scientific inquiry warrants modification over disposal.” We embrace this continued and intense dialogue, and hope it leads to strengthening the model and informing future empirical research. A recent suggestion for pursuing both of these goals was proposed by Silverstein (2015), who noted that social and behavioral scientists should recognize more fully the potential value of information on biomarkers and genetics as predictors of successful aging. This view is in sharp contrast with the concerns of some early critics, who felt that the model was too biomedical. In fact, the MacArthur Research Network on Successful Aging was, from its inception, an interdisciplinary group. In 1984, the foundation officers assembled a group of 16 scholars from various disciplines relevant to aging and invited us to develop the conceptual basis for a “new gerontology.” Our assignment was to “gather the knowledge needed to improve older Americans’ physical and mental health.” In a field that was then dominated by measures of central tendency and neglect of variability, our network was immediately interested in the distinction between “usual” and “better than usual” aging. And at some point in the group discussions, “better than usual” became “successful.” Both the concept and the model of successful aging were the product of our sustained interdisciplinary collaboration and conversations. We recognize, however, that important discipline-based theories of well-being have developed both alongside and following the development of the successful aging model. For example, Paul Baltes’s selection-optimization-compensation (SOC) model (Baltes & Smith, 2003) is psychologybased, as is Carstensen’s (1992) socioemotional selectivity theory. These important psychologically based models, both of which are life-course oriented, emphasize the “how” of successful aging whereas the MacArthur model emphasized the “what.”