The perception of major life events across the life course

Peter Haehner; Bernd Schaefer; Debora Brickau; Till Kaiser; Maike Luhmann

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314011

Abstract

To better understand the effects of life events, research interest recently turned to the question of how life events are perceived (e.g., as positive, predictable, or controllable). However, research on this topic primarily focused on young adulthood, leaving it unclear whether and how the perception of life events varies across the life course. In this study, we examined the relationship between age and different perceived event characteristics using nationally representative data from the German Socioeconomic Panel Innovation Sample (N = 1,044). We found that people reported different event types across among age groups. Furthermore, the perception of life events varied across age and depending on whether an event was experienced at a normative age or not. These findings underline the necessity to take on a life-course perspective when examining life events and support theoretical claims on the relevance of age norms in life-event research.

Citation: Haehner P, Schaefer B, Brickau D, Kaiser T, Luhmann M (2024) The perception of major life events across the life course. PLoS ONE 19(12): e0314011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011

Editor: Igor Sotgiu, University of Bergamo, ITALY

Received: March 12, 2024; Accepted: November 4, 2024; Published: December 4, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Haehner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The dataset is licensed by the German Institute for Economic Research and may thus not be shared publicly. Researchers can access the dataset after signing a contract with the German Institute for Economic Research (https://www.diw.de/en/diw_01.c.601584.en/data_access.html). The data is currently embargoed but will become available to the general public (expected in 2025).

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: he authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Major life events can trigger changes in various important life outcomes, including mental health, physical health, subjective well-being, and loneliness [1–3]. To better understand individual differences in these effects, research interest recently turned to the question of how major life events are perceived [e.g., 4–6]. However, to this date, research focused almost exclusively on young adulthood so that little is known regarding age differences in the perception of major life events [7–9]. In the present study, we take a step towards closing this research gap by examining whether and how the perception of major life events varies across the life course using data from the nationally representative German Socioeconomic Panel Innovation Sample (SOEP-IS).

Major life events across the life course

Major life events such as starting a new relationship, a job loss, or the birth of a child are clearly timed, personally relevant experiences that disrupt one’s everyday life [5]. The effects of major life events have been examined in various disciplines including psychology, economics, epidemiology, and sociology [1, 10–12]. A theme cutting across research in these disciplines is that the effects of major life events depend on the timing of the event occurrence within people’s life course. Age-related differences in the occurrence and effects of major life events have been described and explained in theoretical accounts from various disciplines.

First, life script theory [13] posits that there are culturally shared expectations on the order and timing of life events. These life scripts describe an idealized life course based on social expectations on the most important events within different life phases [14–16]. Importantly, research on life scripts suggests that there are age-related differences in the valence of major life events. Specifically, positive life events like graduation or starting a romantic relationship are expected to occur primarily in young adulthood (i.e., positivity bump in young adulthood), whereas there are no clear age-graded expectations for negative events [17–19].

Second, the concept of developmental tasks has been applied to describe age-related differences in the occurrence and effects of life events [20, 21]. According to this perspective, major life events can be seen as markers of successful or unsuccessful fulfillment of such developmental tasks. For example, events such as job loss or starting a new employment can indicate a developmental milestone in establishing a career. Conceptualizing life events as the attainment of developmental tasks implies that there is a preferable timing of their occurrence throughout the life course and that the non-occurrence of events until a certain age may have adverse effects [21].

Third, and similarly, life course theory [22, 23] suggests the effects of major life events depend on when an event occurs within the life course. These age-graded differences in the effects of life events are assumed to depend on age norms, that is, social expectations regarding the timing of major life events [11, 22]. For example, graduating can be considered as normative in young adulthood but as non-normative in old adulthood. In line with life course theory, empirical research on age-normativity suggests that life events tend to have adverse effects when they occur at a non-normative age [24, 25]. Events that occur at a non-normative age are assumed to be characterized by little social guidance, reduced institutional support, or even social sanctions [24, 26, 27].

In summary, these theoretical perspectives outline the importance of considering age in life-event research as the effects of major life events differ depending on the timing of the event within people’s life course and age-graded social expectations. Thereby, the different theoretical accounts focus on the objective assessment of whether or not a major life event occurs at a certain age. However, recent research indicates that, to fully understand the effects of major life events, it is important to consider people’s subjective perception of major life events, which may also vary across age [e.g., 5, 6, 9].

Age differences in the perception of major life events

Focusing on whether or not a major life event occurs provides a simple and objective approach to the assessment of major life events [e.g., 28–30]. However, this approach has been criticized as the nominally same event can be perceived quite differently by different individuals [5, 31]. For example, a relationship breakup might be a negative, unpredictable shock for one person but a positive relief for another. Different scholars thus have outlined the importance of assessing how people perceive major life events [e.g., 32–36]. Integrating existing approaches to the assessment of the perception of major life events, 5 [5] have developed a dimensional taxonomy of perceived event characteristics. This taxonomy comprises nine perceived event characteristics, which can be assessed reliably using the Event Characteristics Questionnaire (ECQ): challenge, change in world views, emotional significance, external control, extraordinariness, impact, predictability, social status change, and valence.

Recent longitudinal research has illustrated the relevance of these perceived event characteristics to understand the effects of major life events. For example, how people perceive major life events has been related to individual differences in changes in personality traits, subjective well-being, and depression [4, 6, 8, 9, 37, 38]. However, the lion’s share of this existing research examined the perception of major life events in young adulthood. Relatively little attention has been paid to age differences in the perception of major life events although there are reasons to assume that the perception of major life events may vary across the life course. Specifically, in line with the theoretical principles described above, age differences in the perception of major life events may arise due to age differences in the experienced event types and due to the normativity of events during certain life phases [11, 13, 22, 21]. Furthermore, there may be age differences in the perception style of life events. For example, personality traits and subjective well-being are assumed to influence how people perceive major life events [39]. As these constructs change across the life course [e.g., 40, 41], they might in turn contribute to age differences in how people perceive major life events. Thus, it seems warranted to examine whether and how the perception of major life events differs across age.

A better understanding of how the perception of major life events varies across age is important for several reasons. First, examining the perception of major life events across age is theoretically important. Different theoretical accounts posit that the effects of major life events differ across age due to age-graded differences in social expectations on the occurrence of events [13, 22]. Age differences in the perception of major life events could thus point to an important mechanism of this relationship. That is, social expectations may influence how people perceive major life events which, in turn, seems to predict the effects of major life events. Second, taking a life course perspective on the perception of major life events complements existing research on age differences in the occurrence and effects of major life events and connects research traditions from different fields of social sciences [42–47]. Third, evaluating age differences in the perception of major life events allows insights into the generalizability of existing findings on event-perception-outcome links [e.g., 4, 5]. If major life events are perceived differently across age (e.g., young adults generally perceive events as more challenging than old olds), one might expect that associations with individual differences in personality traits or subjective well-being also vary across age. Fourth, age differences in the perception of major life events could also be practically relevant. For example, if a major life event is perceived as particularly challenging or negative at a certain age, this finding might indicate that measures to prevent negative consequences of this event are particularly relevant at this age.

The present study

In this preregistered study, we examined age differences in the perception of major life events using data from the SOEP-IS, a nationally representative and age-heterogeneous sample. In this dataset, participants reported the most important life event they had experienced in the last year and rated how they perceived this event. We addressed three research questions and tested five hypotheses.

First, do the reported event types differ across age groups (Research Question 1)? Replicating existing theoretical and empirical work on age differences in the occurrence of major life events [13, 22], we hypothesized that the frequency of the reported event types differs across age groups (Hypothesis 1).

Second, does the perception of major life events differ across age (Research Question 2)? Based on role script theory and findings on a positivity bump of events in young adulthood [13, 18], we hypothesized that the most important event of the last year is perceived more positively in young adulthood (Hypothesis 2a). Furthermore, based on theories and research indicating that personality traits, attitudes, and world-views become more stable over the life span [e.g., 40, 48–50], we hypothesized that life events are perceived as more world-view changing in young adulthood compared to middle adulthood or old adulthood (Hypothesis 2b).

Third, does the perception of specific event types differ across age and depending on whether an event is experienced at a normative age or not (Research Question 3)? For Research Question 3, we focused on the perception of specific event types (e.g., the death of a loved one) to examine whether and how the same type of event is perceived differently when it occurs in different life phases. As the occurrence of life events at a non-normative age runs against social norms and personal expectations [22, 24], we hypothesized that life events are perceived as less predictable, more extraordinary, and more challenging when they are experienced at a non-normative age (Hypotheses 3a to 3c).

Materials and methods

Transparency and openness

This study is based on the latest wave of the SOEP-IS (Year 2022). The dataset is licensed by the German Institute for Economic Research and may thus not be shared publicly. Researchers can access the dataset after signing a contract with the German Institute for Economic Research. The data is currently embargoed but will become available to the general public (expected in 2025). As the study used secondary data from the SOEP-IS ethical approval at Ruhr-University Bochum was not required (see [51] for details on ethical considerations).

The analyses for this manuscript were preregistered at https://osf.io/x3ucv. We had to deviate in one aspect from our preregistration: We had preregistered to examine age-specific effects (Research Question 3) for the five events with the highest sample size (death of a loved one, celebrating a special occasion, illness or injury, vacation, and childbirth). However, after revising our coding during the revision of this manuscript, the sample size for the event childbirth was too low (N = 17) to allow analyses for this event so that we decided to drop this event from our analysis of Research Question 3. Further details on the analyses (including R scripts) can be found at https://osf.io/qctxh. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.

Study design

The SOEP-IS is a longitudinal household survey administered by the German Institute for Economic Research. The SOEP-IS comprises a nationally representative sample of German inhabitants, and it is a shortened version of the longitudinal household panel study (SOEP-Core) with additional innovative modules. Data collection for the SOEP-IS takes place annually from September to December by visiting German households and interviewing all household members aged at least 16.

Participants

Participants of the SOEP-IS were drawn using a random multistage procedure. In 2022, the total sample size of the SOEP-IS was N = 2,507. However, to reduce participant burden, only half of the participants received the innovative module on event perception. Furthermore, we excluded participants who did not provide a meaningful answer in the open-response field on the most important life event of the last year. Applying this exclusion criterion led to a final sample size of N = 1,044. The mean age of the sample was 56.24 years (SD_age = 17.68, Min = 18, Max = 95). 48% of participants were male and 52% were female.

Measures

Event type.

Using an open-response field, participants named the most important major life event they had experienced in the last 12 months. We categorized these free-text answers into event types. First, we created an initial coding scheme based on items of common life event checklist [e.g., 52] and coding procedures in other studies [4, 31]. Then, we tested and revised the coding scheme using 25% of the free-text responses. For example, we included new categories for event types that were not yet included and collapsed categories with a low frequency. Generally, we applied two different coding procedures: a fine-grained categorization (48 event types; e.g., retirement, new job) to provide detailed information on the experienced event types, and a broad categorization (12 event domains; e.g., work, education) to increase category-specific sample sizes and power for the analyses. Coding was done by two independent coders: The main coder coded 100% of the free-text answers. The reliability coder coded 33% of the answers, which were not included in the creation of the coding scheme. Interrater reliability was good (fine-grained categorization: κ = .85, broad categorization: κ = .76) so that we only used the codings of the main coder in the analyses. The coding instructions can be found in the OSF project of this article.

Perceived event characteristics

The perception of the named event was assessed using the 9-item short version of the ECQ [5, 53]. Each perceived event characteristic was assessed with one item: challenge (“The event was stressful”), emotional significance (“The event was emotionally significant to me”), external control (“The event was in the hands of other people”), extraordinariness (“Most people like me experience this event sometime in their lives”, reverse-coded), impact (“The event had a strong impact on my life”), predictability (“The event occurred unexpectedly”, reverse-coded), social status change (“My reputation suffered from the event”), valence (“The event was negative”, reverse-coded), change in world views (“The event changed my world views”). Items were rated on a scale from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (absolutely true).

Analyses

The analyses were conducted in R (Version 4.3.1). We used a level of significance of α = .05 for all analyses. For some analysis steps, we had to categorize age into age groups. As done by 21 [21], we distinguished three age groups: young adulthood (18–30 years, N = 105), middle adulthood (30–60 years, N = 456), and old adulthood (> 60 years, N = 483). However, to increase power and to examine the robustness of our findings, we repeated all analyses using terciles to create three age groups (young: 18–48.67 years, middle: 48.67–67, old: > 67 years).

Research Question 1: Which events are reported as being most important?

To address Research Question 1, we calculated how often certain event types (fine-grained) or event domains (broad categorization) were mentioned in the different age groups. We used Fisher’s exact test to statistically examine the association between the categorical variables event type/domain and age group because expected frequencies were below 5 in more than 20% of cells. A significant test indicates that the frequencies of the reported event types/domains differ across age groups (cf. Hypothesis 1).

Research Question 2: Does the perception of the most important major life event differ across age?

To address Research Question 2, we ran two different analyses. First, we explored the potentially nonlinear relationship between age and the perception of major life events using age as a metric predictor in Generalized Additive Models (GAMs). Second, we statistically compared the perception of major life events across different age groups to test our hypotheses (Hypotheses 2a and 2b).

Age as a metric predictor. GAMs can be used to easily fit and visualize (complex) nonlinear relationships between variables based on smoothing functions [54, 55]. These smoothing functions try to approximate non-linear trajectories in the data by balancing between over- and underfitting through a smoothing parameter. Using the R package mgcv [55], we estimated GAMs with a smoothed age term as predictor and with the nine perceived event characteristics as dependent variables. Among other things, GAMs provide information on (1) the effective degrees of freedom (edf) indicating the complexity of the relationship between age and a perceived event characteristic (i.e., higher values indicate that a higher-order polynomial regression would be needed to adequately reproduce the relationship), (2) the statistical significance of the relationship, and (3) R² as an approximative indicator of the proportion of variance in a perceived event characteristic. We used Restricted Maximum Likelihood-method (REML) for model estimation. We did not limit the number of basic functions (k) in our analyses and relied on the default smoothing parameter of the gam-function. We explored possible problems in the estimation of GAMs using the gam.check-function. In a further step, we added event type as covariate (without smoothing). This model was used to explore the relationship between age and the perception of major life events controlling for the type of the reported event.

Age groups. As the results of the GAMs can be ambiguous regarding our hypotheses (e.g., there may be a complex nonlinear relationship between age and the perception of major life events), we additionally used one-way ANOVAs and post-hoc comparisons to test whether a perceived event characteristic differs across the three age groups (Hypotheses 2a and 2b).

Research Question 3: Does the perception of specific event types differ across age and depending on whether an event is experienced at a normative age or not?

For Research Question 3, we conducted separate analyses for specific event types. To maximize power, we focused on those event types that had the highest sample sizes: vacation (N = 126), celebrating a special occasion (N = 84), illness or injury (N = 74), and death of a loved one (N = 71). For each of these events, we computed two analyses. First, we repeated the analyses described for Research Question 2 for these events to look at general age effects. Second, we examined age normativity effects using a modified age predictor in the GAMs. Specifically, we centered age on the average age at which the specific event was reported and used the absolute value of this centered variable (i.e., mean-age-deviation variable) as predictor in the GAMs. The mean ages of the four considered life events were as follows: vacation (M = 57.46 years, SD = 15.81), celebrating a special occasion (M = 59.59 years, SD = 17.93), illness or injury (M = 61.93 years, SD = 16.15), and death of a loved one (M = 59.34 years, SD = 14.87). GAMs using this mean-age-deviation variable as predictor were used to address the question of whether deviations from the mean age at which an event occurs are associated with the perception of major life events. We expected to find age normativity effects for the death of a loved one.

Statistical power

Assuming a level of significance of α = .05 and a power to achieve of β = .80, we conducted power analyses to determine the minimum sample size to detect small (R² = 1%), medium-sized (R² = 4%), and strong effects (R² = 9%) in our analyses [56]. For Research Question 1, power calculations suggested that the following sample sizes were needed to detect small, medium, and strong effects: N_small = 2,756, N_medium = 689, N_large = 307. Consequently, our analyses for Research Question 1 were sufficiently powered to detect medium-sized effects. For Research Questions 2 and 3, power calculations suggested that the following sample sizes were needed to detect small, medium, and strong effects: N_small = 1,094, N_medium = 275, N_large = 125. Consequently, our analyses for Research Question 2 were sufficiently powered to detect small effects, whereas our analyses for Research Question 3 could only detect (very) strong effects. The analyses for Research Question 3 should thus be regarded as preliminary because medium-sized or small effects could not be uncovered with sufficient power in these analyses.

Results

This article is accompanied by an HTML document (https://osf.io/qctxh/?view_only=01e12bbc2dab48d982afe85d0893a008) containing additional results such as descriptive statistics (Section 1). Fig 1 illustrates the age distribution in our sample.

Download:

Fig 1. Histogram of participants’ age.

This figure illustrates the age distribution in our representative dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.g001

Research Question 1: Which events are reported as being most important?

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the reported event types differed significantly (ps < .001) across age groups (Fig 2). For example, in young adulthood, the events starting education or academic achievement were mentioned more frequently, whereas in old adulthood, the events medical intervention or illness or injury were mentioned more frequently. Similarly, there were significant differences in the mentioned event domains (ps < .001). For example, in young adulthood, more education-related events were reported, whereas in middle adulthood, work-related events were reported more frequently.

Download:

Fig 2. Research Question 1: Reported events in different age groups.

This figure illustrates the relative frequencies of mentioned event types (Panel A) and event domains (Panel B) within the different age groups. That is, the bars indicate the proportion of events that were of a specific type or domain within an age group. This figure is based on the literature-based categorization of age (young adulthood: 18 to 30 years, middle adulthood: 30 to 60 years, old adulthood: > 60 years). Results for the terciles-based categorization of age and a colored version of this figure can be found in the S1 File (Section 2).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.g002

Research Question 2: Does the perception of the most important major life event differ across age?

To address Research Question 2, we estimated GAMs using a smoothed age term as predictor and a perceived event characteristic as dependent variable. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig 3. Perceived challenge (edf = 3.42, p = .019), impact (edf = 2.64, p < .001), predictability (edf = 4.00, p = .009), social status change (edf = 7.63, p < .001), and valence (edf = 2.65, p = .001) varied in a non-linear fashion across age (see Fig 3 for details regarding the shape of the association). For example, the perceived (positive) valence of the most important event decreased until age 50, was stable between age 50 to 80, and decreased again from age 80 onwards. Furthermore, change in world views decreased (edf = 1.00, p < .001) and external control increased (edf = 1.35, p = .007) in a linear fashion across age, whereas extraordinariness (edf = 1.00, p = .187) and emotional significance (edf = 2.03, p = .347) did not vary significantly across age. In general, age explained a small to medium-sized proportion of the variance of the perceived event characteristics (.00 ≤ R² ≤ .04; 56).

Download:

Fig 3. Research Question 2: The perception of the most important event across age.

This figure illustrates how the perception of the most important event of the last year varies across age. Depicted are the results without event type as covariate. Results of models with event type as covariate can be found in Section 3 of the S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.g003

Download:

Table 1. Results of research Question 2: Age differences in perception of most important event.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.t001

To test our hypotheses, we also used a categorical classification of age (see Section 3 of the S1 File). In line with Hypothesis 2a, we found that the most important event of the last year was perceived as significantly more positive in young adulthood compared to middle adulthood (b = 0.58, p_Tukey = .003) or old adulthood (b = 0.62, p_Tukey = .001). Furthermore, in line with Hypothesis 2b, we found that the most important event of the last year was perceived as significantly more world-view changing in young adulthood compared to old adulthood (b = 0.64, p_Tukey < .001). However, contrary to our hypothesis, the comparison between young adulthood and middle adulthood did not reach statistical significance (b = 0.32, p_Tukey = .094).

In the next step, we additionally included event type as covariate in the models to examine whether age differences in the perception of major life events can be found after accounting for the fact that the experienced events differ across age. As can be seen in Table 1, models including event type as covariate generally provided similar results as models not accounting for event type. There were only two exceptions: After controlling for event type, perceived predictability and valence of the most important event no longer varied across age. Thus, results indicate that age differences in perceived predictability and valence may be explained by age differences in the reported event types, whereas age differences in other perceived event characteristics do not (only) depend on the reported event type. Of note, models including event types as covariate explained a substantially larger amount of variance (.08 ≤ R² ≤ .57), indicating that event type may be a better indicator of the perception of major life events than age alone.

Research Question 3: Does the perception of specific event types differ across age and depending on whether an event is experienced at a normative age or not?

To address Research Question 3, we focused on the event types with the largest sample sizes (vacation, celebrating a special occasion, illness or injury, death of a loved one). First, we examined whether the perception of specific events varies across age. Results are summarized in Table 2 and illustrated in Fig 4. The overall finding is that age differences in the perception of major life events differed among event types. For example, while perceived extraordinariness of a vacation decreased during young adulthood, reached a nadir in middle adulthood, and then increased again throughout the remainder of the lifespan, no statistically significant age differences were found for the perceived extraordinariness of illness/injury, celebrations, or death of a loved one. These results indicate that although there may be general age trends in the perception of the most important event (Research Question 2), there nonetheless seem to be specific patterns for specific major life events.

Download:

Fig 4. Research Question 3a: Age differences in the perception of specific events.

This figure illustrates how the perception of specific event types varies across age. For a colored version of this figure, please see Section 4 of the S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.g004

Download:

Table 2. Research Question 3a: Age differences in the perception of specific major life events.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.t002

Second, we examined whether the perception of specific events depends on whether an event is experienced at a normative age or not. Results are summarized in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig 5. We had hypothesized that the death of a loved one is perceived as more challenging, more extraordinary, and less predictable when it is experienced at a non-normative age (Hypotheses 3a to 3c). Results were only partly in line with these hypotheses. The death of a loved one was experienced as more challenging when experienced at a non-normative age (edf = 1.00, p = .043). However, the other hypothesized associations were not found. Generally, the results of Research Question 3 should be regarded as preliminary due to the relatively small sample sizes for specific event types.

Download:

Fig 5. Research Question 3b: Differences in the perception of major life events depending on age-normativity.

This figure illustrates how the perception of specific event types varies depending on whether the event is experienced at a normative age or not. For a colored version of this figure, please see Section 4 of the S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.g005

Download:

Table 3. Research Question 3b: Differences in the perception of major life events depending on age normativity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.t003

Discussion

Based on a nationally representative and age-heterogeneous German sample, we examined how major life events are perceived over the life course. In the following, we summarize the most important results of our study and discuss possible explanations and potential implications of these findings.

First, we found that the reported event types and event domains differed across age groups. In line with theoretical predictions [13, 22, 21], these age differences in the reported events match social expectations. For example, health-related events were reported more frequently in old adulthood whereas education-related events were reported more frequently in young adulthood. These findings underline the relevance of considering age when examining the effects of major life events, and they support theoretical notions on age differences in the timing of life events throughout people’s life course [13, 22].

Second, there were age differences in the perception of the most important event, and these differences were not solely attributable to differences in the experienced event types. Specifically, we found that the reported events were perceived more positively in young adulthood compared to old adulthood. This result is in line with life script theory, which suggests that young adulthood is a life phase that is characterized by many positive life transitions [e.g., 13, 14, 17]. Importantly, this positivity bump in young adulthood is assumed to be practically relevant as it seems to be related to personality changes into the direction of greater maturity in young adulthood [21, 40, 50]. However, memory bias or reporting bias could be alternative explanations for this finding. For example, drawing on mood-congruent memory effect, it might be the case that young adults report more positive events than old adults as they can retrieve them more easily due to the on average more positive mood in young adulthood [41, 57]. Furthermore, we found that the reported major life events were perceived as more world-view changing in young adulthood compared to old adulthood. These findings match research on the development of attitudes, traits, and narratives [e.g., 40, 49]. As these constructs become more stable when people age, major life events might have a reduced impact on people’s world views and, therefore, be perceived as less world-view changing. More generally, the finding that several perceived event characteristics varied across age even when controlling for event type could be explained by the fact that variables associated with (or possibly causing) the perception of major life events change across the lifespan. For example, personality traits, subjective well-being, or cognitive styles have been assumed to predict the perception of major life events [8, 9, 58]. As these variables change across the lifespan, they might lead to age differences in the perception style of major life events.

Third, we found that the perception of major life events also partly differed depending on whether an event was experienced at a normative age or not. For example, the death of a loved one was perceived as more challenging when experienced at a non-normative age. These findings support theoretical notions on the relevance of age norms when examining the effects of major life events [22, 24, 26, 44]. The perception of major life events could be a mechanism linking age norms to detrimental outcomes: Experiencing life events at a non-normative age might lead to a more unfavourable event perception, which in turn may cause more maladaptive reactions to the event [9, 39]. However, it should be noted that age-normativity differences in the perception of major life events were relatively small and that power for these analyses was limited. Furthermore, we only examined “statistical norms” in this study, that is, we defined age normativity based on the mean age of event occurrence, but we did not consider actual prescriptions related to age (e.g., an event should happen until a certain age; [11].

In summary, our findings suggest that age differences in the perception of major life events depend on the experienced event types, differences in the perception style of the same event, and age-differences related to the normativity of life events in certain life phases. Thus, age seems to be a relevant variable not only regarding the occurrence of major life events but also when examining the perception of major life events [21, 22, 44]. Consequently, research on how the perception of major life events is related to changes in important life outcomes such as health, relationship quality, or well-being should move beyond examining these links in young adulthood and instead investigate event-perception-outcome links across the entire lifespan. The findings of the present study are also practically relevant as they provide insights into who might be at risk for unfavorable event perceptions. Specifically, people above age 80 tend to perceive life events as more challenging, more social status threatening, and more negative, indicating that adaptation processes to life events may take place in older adulthood.

Strengths and limitations

The present study used a nationally representative dataset to examine the relationship between age and the perception of major life events. Using GAMs, we accounted for the possible nonlinear relationship between these constructs and considered both age effects and age-normativity effects. However, the present study also had several limitations. First, participants were asked to report the most important event that they had experienced in the last year. Thus, it is unclear whether our findings generalize to other experienced life events with a lower importance. Relatedly, the results of the present study may be influenced by the historical context. The data was collected in 2022 and several participants named events related to the Covid-19 pandemic or the Russian-Ukrainian war. As these collective life events affected people of any age, we might have underestimated age differences in the present study.

Second, although we relied on a relatively large, nationally representative study, the sample sizes of specific event types were still quite low, which limited our power to uncover age differences and age-normativity effects for specific life events. Thus, results regarding Research Question 3 should be regarded as preliminary.

Third, in the SOEP-IS, each perceived event characteristic was only assessed with one item. While there is initial evidence supporting the psychometric quality of this brief measure of perceived event characteristics [53], longer measures are required for a broader coverage of a construct and to obtain more reliable estimates. Specifically, the item used to assess extraordinariness (“Most people like me experience this event sometime in their lives”, reverse-coded) may not be ideal to identify age-normativity effects. Findings related to extraordinariness may be seen as “the lower bound” of effects that can be found for this event characteristic.

Fourth, this study relied on a sample recruited in a Western, democratic country. However, the normativity of life events differs across cultures [e.g., 59]. Consequently, research on the perception of major life events in other cultural contexts is needed to test whether the results of the present study generalize to other cultural contexts.

Conclusion

The perception of major life events varies across the life course and partly also depending on whether an event is experienced as a normative age or not. The perception of major life events could thus be a relevant mechanism linking age norms to age-graded differences in the effects of major life events. Therefore, future research on the perception of major life events should broaden its scope beyond young adulthood and examine event-perception-outcome links across the entire lifespan.

Supporting information

S1 File. This manuscript is accompanied by an HTML document with supporting information containing our analysis code, additional figures, and tables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314011.s001

(HTML)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kai Jule Latzel for their help with the coding of the life event data.

References

1. Bleidorn W, Hopwood CJ, Lucas RE. Life events and personality trait change. Journal of personality 2018; 86(1):83–96. pmid:27716921
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Cohen S, Murphy MLM, Prather AA. Ten surprising facts about stressful life events and disease risk. Annu Rev Psychol 2019; 70:577–97. pmid:29949726
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Luhmann M, Hofmann W, Eid M, Lucas RE. Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 2012; 102(3):592–615. pmid:22059843
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Haehner P, Rakhshani A, Fassbender I, Lucas RE, Donnellan MB, Luhmann M. Perception of major life events and personality trait change. Eur J Pers 2023; 37(5):524–542.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Luhmann M, Fassbender I, Alcock M, Haehner P. A dimensional taxonomy of perceived characteristics of major life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 2021; 121(3):633–68. pmid:32338939
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Schwaba T, Denissen JJA, Luhmann M, Hopwood CJ, Bleidorn W. Subjective experiences of life events match individual differences in personality development. J Pers Soc Psychol 2023; 125(5):1136–56. pmid:37956070
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Haehner P, Bleidorn W, Hopwood CJ. Examining individual differences in personality trait changes after negative life events. Eur J Pers 2024; 38(2):209–224.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Haehner P, Pfeifer LS, Fassbender I, Luhmann M. Are changes in the perception of major life events associated with changes in subjective well-being? Journal of Research in Personality 2023; 102:104321.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Haehner P, Würtz F, Kritzler S, Kunna M, Luhmann M, Woud ML. The relationship between the perception of major life events and depression: A systematic scoping review and meta-analysis. Journal of affective disorders 2024; 349:145–57. pmid:38190863
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Ben-Shlomo Y, Mishra G, Kuh D. Life Course Epidemiology. In: Ahrens W, Pigeot I, editors. Handbook of Epidemiology. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. p. 1521–49.
11. Settersten RA, Mayer KU. The Measurement of Age, Age Structuring, and the Life Course. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997; 23(1):233–61.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Smith J, Hu M, Lee H. Measuring life course events and life histories. In: Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Elsevier; 2021. p. 33–47.
13. Berntsen D, Rubin DC. Cultural life scripts structure recall from autobiographical memory. Mem Cognit 2004; 32(3):427–42. pmid:15285126
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Bohn A. Generational differences in cultural life scripts and life story memories of younger and older adults. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2010; 24(9):1324–45.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Janssen SMJ, Rubin DC. Age Effects in Cultural Life Scripts. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2011; 25(2):291–8. pmid:24701028
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Tekcan Aİ, Kaya-Kızılöz B, Odaman H. Life scripts across age groups: a comparison of adolescents, young adults, and older adults. Memory 2012; 20(8):836–47. pmid:22897157
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Hatiboğlu N, Habermas T. The normativity of life scripts and its relation with life story events across cultures and subcultures. Memory 2016; 24(10):1369–81. pmid:26564986
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Martin T, Kemper NF, Schmiedek F, Habermas T. Lifespan effects of current age and of age at the time of remembered events on the affective tone of life narrative memories: Early adolescence and older age are more negative. Mem Cognit 2023; 51(6):1265–86. pmid:36813991
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Shanahan E, Busseri MA. A systematic review of the relationship between perceived life script event age and valence across the life span. Psychology and Aging 2019; 34(5):698–708. pmid:31144831
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Havighurst RJ. Developmental tasks and education. 3d ed. New York: Longman; 1972.
21. Hutteman R, Hennecke M, Orth U, Reitz AK, Specht J. Developmental tasks as a framework to study personality development in adulthood and old age. Eur J Pers 2014; 28(3):267–78.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Elder GH. The Life Course as Developmental Theory. Child Development 1998; 69(1):1. pmid:9499552
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Elder GH, Johnson MK, Crosnoe R. The Emergence and Development of Life Course Theory. In: Kaplan HB, Mortimer JT, Shanahan MJ, editors. Handbook of the Life Course. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2003. p. 3–19 (Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research).
24. Liefbroer AC, Billari FC. Bringing norms back in: a theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population Space and Place 2010; 16(4):287–305.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Radl J. Too old to work, or too young to retire? The pervasiveness of age norms in Western Europe. Work, Employment and Society 2012; 26(5):755–71.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Furstenberg FF. Non-normative life course transitions: reflections on the significance of demographic events on lives. Advances in Life Course Research 2005; 10:155–72.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Wrosch C, Freund AM. Self-Regulation of Normative and Non-Normative Developmental Challenges. Human Development 2001; 44(5):264–83.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Asselmann E, Specht J. Testing the Social Investment Principle around childbirth: Little evidence for personality maturation before and after becoming a parent. Eur J Pers 2021; 35(1):85–102.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Denissen JJA, Luhmann M, Chung JM, Bleidorn W. Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. J Pers Soc Psychol 2019; 116(4):612–33. Available from: URL: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-35126-001. pmid:30047764
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Lüdtke O, Roberts BW, Trautwein U, Nagy G. A random walk down university avenue: life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011; 101(3):620–37. pmid:21744977
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Kritzler S, Rakhshani A, Terwiel S, Fassbender I, Donnellan MB, Lucas RE et al. How are common major life events perceived? Exploring differences between and variability of different typical event profiles and raters. Eur J Pers 2023; 37(2):171–186.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Brown GW, Harris TO. Life events and illness. New York: Guilford Press; 1989.
33. Ferguson E, Matthews G, Cox T. The Appraisal of Life Events (ALE) scale: Reliability and validity [British Journal of Health Psychology, 4(2), 97–116] 1999.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Gall TL, Evans DR. The dimensionality of cognitive appraisal and its relationship to physical and psychological well-being. The Journal of psychology 1987; 121(6):539–46. pmid:3437411
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Peacock EJ, Wong PTP. The stress appraisal measure (SAM): A multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Med. 1990; 6(3):227–36.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Servaty-Seib HL. Using a gain/loss framework to measure impact: The perceived impact of life event scale. Journal of Loss and Trauma 2014; 19(4):331–54.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Fassbender I, Haehner P, Buecker S, Luhmann M. Perceived characteristics of life events—short-term changes in prosociality and empathy? European Journal of Personality 2022; 36(4).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Vries JH de, Spengler M, Frintrup A, Mussel P. Personality development in emerging adulthood—How the perception of life events and mindset affect personality trait change. Frontiers in psychology 2021; 12. pmid:34234715
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Haehner P, Kritzler S, Luhmann M. Individual differences in changes in subjective well-being: The role of event characteristics after negative life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 2024; 127(3):702–29. pmid:39023927
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Bleidorn W, Schwaba T, Zheng A, Hopwood CJ, Sosa SS, Roberts BW et al. Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 2022.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Buecker S, Luhmann M, Haehner P, Bühler JL, Dapp LC, Luciano EC et al. The development of subjective well-being across the life span: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 2023; 149(7–8):418–46.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Bernardi L, Huinink J, Settersten RA. The life course cube: A tool for studying lives. Advances in Life Course Research 2019; 41:100258. pmid:36738031
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Diewald M, Mayer KU. The sociology of the life course and life span psychology: Integrated paradigm or complementing pathways? Advances in Life Course Research 2009; 14(1–2):5–14.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Leopold T, Lechner CM. Parents’ Death and Adult Well-being: Gender, Age, and Adaptation to Filial Bereavement. Fam Relat 2015; 77(3):747–60.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Shanahan MJ, Porfelli E. Integrating the Life Course and Life-Span: Formulating Research Questions with Dual Points of Entry. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2002; 61(3):398–406.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Skopek J, Leopold T. Who becomes a grandparent–and when? Educational differences in the chances and timing of grandparenthood. DemRes 2017; 37:917–28.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. van Scheppingen MA, Leopold T. Trajectories of life satisfaction before, upon, and after divorce: Evidence from a new matching approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 2020; 119(6):1444–58. pmid:31580108
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Köber C, Habermas T. How stable is the personal past? Stability of most important autobiographical memories and life narratives across eight years in a life span sample. J Pers Soc Psychol 2017; 113(4):608–26. pmid:28333472
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Krosnick JA, Alwin DF. Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 57(3):416–25. pmid:2778632
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Roberts BW, Nickel LB. A critical evaluation of the Neo-Socioanalytic Model of personality. In: Specht J, editor. Personality development across the lifespan. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2017. p. 157–77.
51. Richter D, Schupp J. The SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP IS). Schmollers Jahrbuch 2015; 135(3):389–99.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Sarason IG, Johnson JH, Siegel JM. Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978; 46(5):932–46. pmid:701572
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Luhmann M, Fassbender I, Krasko J, Haehner P. The Event Characteristics Questionnaire: English translation and short forms [Manuscript in preparation]; 2023.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Pedersen EJ, Miller DL, Simpson GL, Ross N. Hierarchical generalized additive models in ecology: an introduction with mgcv. PeerJ 2019; 7:e6876. pmid:31179172
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Wood SN. Generalized Additive Models. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2017.
56. Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2019; 2(2):156–68.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Mayer JD, McCormick LJ, Strong SE. Mood-Congruent Memory and Natural Mood: New Evidence. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1995; 21(7):736–46.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Rakhshani A, Lucas RE, Donnellan MB, Fassbender I, Luhmann M. Personality traits and perceptions of major life events. Eur J Pers 2022; 36(4):683–703.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Ngo HM, Le TN. Stressful life events, culture, and violence. J Immigr Minor Health 2007; 9(2):75–84. pmid:17160358
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Bleidorn W, Hopwood CJ, Lucas RE. Life events and personality trait change. Journal of personality 2018; 86(1):83–96. pmid:27716921
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Cohen S, Murphy MLM, Prather AA. Ten surprising facts about stressful life events and disease risk. Annu Rev Psychol 2019; 70:577–97. pmid:29949726
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Luhmann M, Hofmann W, Eid M, Lucas RE. Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 2012; 102(3):592–615. pmid:22059843
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Haehner P, Rakhshani A, Fassbender I, Lucas RE, Donnellan MB, Luhmann M. Perception of major life events and personality trait change. Eur J Pers 2023; 37(5):524–542.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Luhmann M, Fassbender I, Alcock M, Haehner P. A dimensional taxonomy of perceived characteristics of major life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 2021; 121(3):633–68. pmid:32338939
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Schwaba T, Denissen JJA, Luhmann M, Hopwood CJ, Bleidorn W. Subjective experiences of life events match individual differences in personality development. J Pers Soc Psychol 2023; 125(5):1136–56. pmid:37956070
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Haehner P, Bleidorn W, Hopwood CJ. Examining individual differences in personality trait changes after negative life events. Eur J Pers 2024; 38(2):209–224.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Haehner P, Pfeifer LS, Fassbender I, Luhmann M. Are changes in the perception of major life events associated with changes in subjective well-being? Journal of Research in Personality 2023; 102:104321.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Haehner P, Würtz F, Kritzler S, Kunna M, Luhmann M, Woud ML. The relationship between the perception of major life events and depression: A systematic scoping review and meta-analysis. Journal of affective disorders 2024; 349:145–57. pmid:38190863
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Ben-Shlomo Y, Mishra G, Kuh D. Life Course Epidemiology. In: Ahrens W, Pigeot I, editors. Handbook of Epidemiology. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. p. 1521–49.

[ref11] 11. Settersten RA, Mayer KU. The Measurement of Age, Age Structuring, and the Life Course. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997; 23(1):233–61.
View Article
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Smith J, Hu M, Lee H. Measuring life course events and life histories. In: Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Elsevier; 2021. p. 33–47.

[ref13] 13. Berntsen D, Rubin DC. Cultural life scripts structure recall from autobiographical memory. Mem Cognit 2004; 32(3):427–42. pmid:15285126
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Bohn A. Generational differences in cultural life scripts and life story memories of younger and older adults. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2010; 24(9):1324–45.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Janssen SMJ, Rubin DC. Age Effects in Cultural Life Scripts. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2011; 25(2):291–8. pmid:24701028
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Tekcan Aİ, Kaya-Kızılöz B, Odaman H. Life scripts across age groups: a comparison of adolescents, young adults, and older adults. Memory 2012; 20(8):836–47. pmid:22897157
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Hatiboğlu N, Habermas T. The normativity of life scripts and its relation with life story events across cultures and subcultures. Memory 2016; 24(10):1369–81. pmid:26564986
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Martin T, Kemper NF, Schmiedek F, Habermas T. Lifespan effects of current age and of age at the time of remembered events on the affective tone of life narrative memories: Early adolescence and older age are more negative. Mem Cognit 2023; 51(6):1265–86. pmid:36813991
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Shanahan E, Busseri MA. A systematic review of the relationship between perceived life script event age and valence across the life span. Psychology and Aging 2019; 34(5):698–708. pmid:31144831
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Havighurst RJ. Developmental tasks and education. 3d ed. New York: Longman; 1972.

[ref21] 21. Hutteman R, Hennecke M, Orth U, Reitz AK, Specht J. Developmental tasks as a framework to study personality development in adulthood and old age. Eur J Pers 2014; 28(3):267–78.
View Article
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Elder GH. The Life Course as Developmental Theory. Child Development 1998; 69(1):1. pmid:9499552
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Elder GH, Johnson MK, Crosnoe R. The Emergence and Development of Life Course Theory. In: Kaplan HB, Mortimer JT, Shanahan MJ, editors. Handbook of the Life Course. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2003. p. 3–19 (Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research).

[ref24] 24. Liefbroer AC, Billari FC. Bringing norms back in: a theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population Space and Place 2010; 16(4):287–305.
View Article
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Radl J. Too old to work, or too young to retire? The pervasiveness of age norms in Western Europe. Work, Employment and Society 2012; 26(5):755–71.
View Article
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Furstenberg FF. Non-normative life course transitions: reflections on the significance of demographic events on lives. Advances in Life Course Research 2005; 10:155–72.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Wrosch C, Freund AM. Self-Regulation of Normative and Non-Normative Developmental Challenges. Human Development 2001; 44(5):264–83.
View Article
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Asselmann E, Specht J. Testing the Social Investment Principle around childbirth: Little evidence for personality maturation before and after becoming a parent. Eur J Pers 2021; 35(1):85–102.
View Article
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Denissen JJA, Luhmann M, Chung JM, Bleidorn W. Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. J Pers Soc Psychol 2019; 116(4):612–33. Available from: URL: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-35126-001. pmid:30047764
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] PubMed/NCBI

[93] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Lüdtke O, Roberts BW, Trautwein U, Nagy G. A random walk down university avenue: life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011; 101(3):620–37. pmid:21744977
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] PubMed/NCBI

[97] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Kritzler S, Rakhshani A, Terwiel S, Fassbender I, Donnellan MB, Lucas RE et al. How are common major life events perceived? Exploring differences between and variability of different typical event profiles and raters. Eur J Pers 2023; 37(2):171–186.
View Article
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Brown GW, Harris TO. Life events and illness. New York: Guilford Press; 1989.

[ref33] 33. Ferguson E, Matthews G, Cox T. The Appraisal of Life Events (ALE) scale: Reliability and validity [British Journal of Health Psychology, 4(2), 97–116] 1999.
View Article
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Gall TL, Evans DR. The dimensionality of cognitive appraisal and its relationship to physical and psychological well-being. The Journal of psychology 1987; 121(6):539–46. pmid:3437411
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Peacock EJ, Wong PTP. The stress appraisal measure (SAM): A multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Med. 1990; 6(3):227–36.
View Article
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Servaty-Seib HL. Using a gain/loss framework to measure impact: The perceived impact of life event scale. Journal of Loss and Trauma 2014; 19(4):331–54.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Fassbender I, Haehner P, Buecker S, Luhmann M. Perceived characteristics of life events—short-term changes in prosociality and empathy? European Journal of Personality 2022; 36(4).
View Article
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Vries JH de, Spengler M, Frintrup A, Mussel P. Personality development in emerging adulthood—How the perception of life events and mindset affect personality trait change. Frontiers in psychology 2021; 12. pmid:34234715
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Haehner P, Kritzler S, Luhmann M. Individual differences in changes in subjective well-being: The role of event characteristics after negative life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 2024; 127(3):702–29. pmid:39023927
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Bleidorn W, Schwaba T, Zheng A, Hopwood CJ, Sosa SS, Roberts BW et al. Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 2022.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Buecker S, Luhmann M, Haehner P, Bühler JL, Dapp LC, Luciano EC et al. The development of subjective well-being across the life span: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 2023; 149(7–8):418–46.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Bernardi L, Huinink J, Settersten RA. The life course cube: A tool for studying lives. Advances in Life Course Research 2019; 41:100258. pmid:36738031
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Diewald M, Mayer KU. The sociology of the life course and life span psychology: Integrated paradigm or complementing pathways? Advances in Life Course Research 2009; 14(1–2):5–14.
View Article
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Leopold T, Lechner CM. Parents’ Death and Adult Well-being: Gender, Age, and Adaptation to Filial Bereavement. Fam Relat 2015; 77(3):747–60.
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Shanahan MJ, Porfelli E. Integrating the Life Course and Life-Span: Formulating Research Questions with Dual Points of Entry. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2002; 61(3):398–406.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Skopek J, Leopold T. Who becomes a grandparent–and when? Educational differences in the chances and timing of grandparenthood. DemRes 2017; 37:917–28.
View Article
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. van Scheppingen MA, Leopold T. Trajectories of life satisfaction before, upon, and after divorce: Evidence from a new matching approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 2020; 119(6):1444–58. pmid:31580108
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Köber C, Habermas T. How stable is the personal past? Stability of most important autobiographical memories and life narratives across eight years in a life span sample. J Pers Soc Psychol 2017; 113(4):608–26. pmid:28333472
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Krosnick JA, Alwin DF. Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 57(3):416–25. pmid:2778632
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Roberts BW, Nickel LB. A critical evaluation of the Neo-Socioanalytic Model of personality. In: Specht J, editor. Personality development across the lifespan. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2017. p. 157–77.

[ref51] 51. Richter D, Schupp J. The SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP IS). Schmollers Jahrbuch 2015; 135(3):389–99.
View Article
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Sarason IG, Johnson JH, Siegel JM. Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978; 46(5):932–46. pmid:701572
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Luhmann M, Fassbender I, Krasko J, Haehner P. The Event Characteristics Questionnaire: English translation and short forms [Manuscript in preparation]; 2023.
View Article
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Pedersen EJ, Miller DL, Simpson GL, Ross N. Hierarchical generalized additive models in ecology: an introduction with mgcv. PeerJ 2019; 7:e6876. pmid:31179172
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Wood SN. Generalized Additive Models. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2017.

[ref56] 56. Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2019; 2(2):156–68.
View Article
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Mayer JD, McCormick LJ, Strong SE. Mood-Congruent Memory and Natural Mood: New Evidence. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1995; 21(7):736–46.
View Article
Google Scholar

[180] View Article

[181] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Rakhshani A, Lucas RE, Donnellan MB, Fassbender I, Luhmann M. Personality traits and perceptions of major life events. Eur J Pers 2022; 36(4):683–703.
View Article
Google Scholar

[183] View Article

[184] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Ngo HM, Le TN. Stressful life events, culture, and violence. J Immigr Minor Health 2007; 9(2):75–84. pmid:17160358
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[186] View Article

[187] PubMed/NCBI

[188] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Major life events across the life course

Age differences in the perception of major life events

The present study

Materials and methods

Transparency and openness

Study design

Participants

Measures

Event type.

Perceived event characteristics

Analyses

Research Question 1: Which events are reported as being most important?

Research Question 2: Does the perception of the most important major life event differ across age?

Research Question 3: Does the perception of specific event types differ across age and depending on whether an event is experienced at a normative age or not?

Statistical power

Results

Research Question 1: Which events are reported as being most important?

Research Question 2: Does the perception of the most important major life event differ across age?

Research Question 3: Does the perception of specific event types differ across age and depending on whether an event is experienced at a normative age or not?

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 File. This manuscript is accompanied by an HTML document with supporting information containing our analysis code, additional figures, and tables.

Acknowledgments

References