The distance to death perceptions of older adults explain why they age in place: A theoretical examination

Older persons prefer to age in place or stay put in their current dwellings and move less frequently than any other age group. However, current residential mobility theories do not fully account for these preferences and behaviors because they focus on why older people move rather than on why they remain in their dwellings and do not consider the temporal or human developmental context of these residential decisions. It is essential to understand why older persons are reluctant to move because their ability to age successfully—have healthy, independent, active, and enjoyable lives—depends on where they live. When they stay put, they also rely more on family caregivers and paid home care providers to maintain their independence, rather than on the supportive services offered by senior group facilities, such as assisted living. They demand more home modification and financial service products, and their residential decisions influence the supply of housing that younger populations can potentially buy or rent. This paper's theoretical analysis proposes that Carstensen's socioemotional selectivity theory (SST), a lifespan theory of motivation, improves our understanding of why older persons age in place—either in their dwellings or more broadly in their communities. It offers an alternative interpretation of how life-changing events, such as retirement, lower incomes, spousal death, physical limitations, and health declines, influence their residential decisions. Whereas residential mobility theories view these transitions as disruptions that change the appropriateness or congruence of where older people live, SST proposes that older persons perceive these events as signs or cues that they are closer to death and must differently prioritize their goals and emotional experiences. Feeling their time is “running out,” older persons are motivated to stay put because moving requires preparations that are physically and emotionally trying and they are able to adapt to their current housing shortcomings. Their residential environments are now also a source of difficult-to-replace positive emotions and provide them with a supportive network of intimate and reliable interpersonal relationships. It is challenging for them to learn how to safely and efficiently conduct their usual activities and routines in another location and to establish new residential attachments and social connections. They would benefit from any net positive emotional payoffs only in a distant future, an unattractive prospect when they perceive a limited time left to live. Empirical studies must test the theoretical propositions presented in this paper. However, the disproportionally large projected future growth of the age 75 and older population with a heightened awareness of their limited time left to live should be a strong rationale for such investigations.