Socioemotional selectivity theory (SST; Carstensen et al., 1999; Carstensen, 2006, 2021) was originally developed to account for “the paradox of aging,” that is, despite many hardships associated with aging, older people are in better mental health (Blazer and Hybels, 2014; Thomas et al., 2016) and report higher levels of emotional well-being than younger people (Stone et al., 2010; Carstensen et al., 2011; Burr et al., 2021). SST maintains that whereas younger people highly value exploration and novelty, with age, shrinking time horizons lead people to focus on the present, prioritize emotionally meaningful aspects of life, and invest in close social relationships. Theoretically, this shift in social motivation benefits emotional well-being.

Research examining postulates from SST has generated robust evidence for age differences in social motivation and, importantly, demonstrated that modifying future time horizons eliminates age differences (e.g., Fredrickson and Carstensen, 1990; Fung et al., 1999, 2001; Fung and Carstensen, 2006). When younger people imagine conditions that constrain future time, their social preferences mimic those observed in older people (Fredrickson and Carstensen, 1990). Conversely, when older people imagine expanded future time horizons, their preferences resemble younger adults’ (Fung et al., 1999).

In addition to hypothetical manipulations of time horizons, one report documented similar changes in younger adults’ preferences when naturally-occurring events primed life’s fragility (Fung and Carstensen, 2006) and found that younger people’s social preferences resembled those of older adults during the 2003 SARS epidemic in Hong Kong and shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. However, questions remain about the robustness of these effects as well as the durability of shifts as time horizons are constrained or expanded. In the present study, we examined whether age differences in social preferences were absent during COVID-19 and appeared after the COVID-19 vaccines were available, as COVID-19 imposed ubiquitous threats to life at its peak which receded when vaccines became available.

To assess social motivation, we surveyed younger, middle-aged, and older Americans twice during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and two more times after vaccines had become available. The survey was based on the measure of social preferences used in previous research Fredrickson and Carstensen (1990) and Fung and Carstensen (2006). We reasoned that well-documented age differences in social preferences would be absent during the pandemic but would be evident after vaccines were introduced.

The COVID-19 pandemic first surged in the United States during April and May of 2020. Hundreds of thousands of Americans contracted the virus during this window of time. The life-threatening nature of the pandemic primed mortality across the age spectrum. Many young people reported feeling older when the pandemic first surged (Heller, 2020). According to SST, such conditions are associated with preferences for emotionally meaningful goals. Thus, in April 2020 and subsequently May 2020, we deployed a survey to Americans aged 18–93. We hypothesized that younger, middle-aged, and older adults would express similar preferences as older adults during the peak of the pandemic.

In December 2020, the first dose of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine was delivered to all 50 states (Cullinane et al., 2020) and vaccination programs were put in place across the nation. People began to see a return to normalcy. We reasoned that at this point, younger adults would again begin to perceive their futures as expansive. After vaccination efforts were underway, we deployed the survey in two samples, once in March 2021 and again in June 2021. Thus, we tested and replicated the hypotheses in a total of four independent samples; two samples during the peak of the pandemic and two more once vaccines had become available.

All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4.

Findings suggest that during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic when mortality was highly salient in the U.S. population, the social preferences of younger adults were indistinguishable from preferences of middle-aged and older adults. Regardless of age, people expressed preferences for emotionally close social partners over novel social partners. After vaccines had become available, younger people’s preferences returned to well-documented pre-pandemic preferences for interactions with novel social partners who satisfied exploratory goals. Because surveys were deployed and replicated during each phase of the pandemic, findings appear to be robust and reliable.

Because the pandemic primed endings for a prolonged period, it allowed us to address an important theoretical issue about emotional aging, namely, does a mortality threat change younger adults’ goals in ways that resemble those expressed by older adults? And if so, do such changes endure? Our findings suggest that the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second is no. After vaccines had become available, well-documented age differences in social goals reappeared. Presumably, vaccines allowed younger people to focus once again on their long-term futures.

Theoretically, the fluidity of preferences underscores the importance of time horizons in social motivation. Age differences characterized by smaller social networks comprised of emotionally close social partners—long thought to reflect cognitive and physiological decline when observed in older people—are likely related to motivational differences associated with constraints on future time. The fact that vaccine availability in the second pair of surveys found that younger people were placing priority on future-oriented goals offers strong support for the role of perceived time horizons on social preferences.

In addition to theoretical implications, findings hold practical importance. Social goals change in the face of life-threatening disease. Understanding changes to social priorities can enable policymakers and health practitioners to tailor public health messages aimed at slowing the spread of infectious diseases to match goals of target audiences (Carstensen and Hershfield, 2021). Whereas surface-level market segmentation tends to rely on time since birth (i.e., chronological age), perceived time left in life may be more informative in explaining the systematic age differences in motivation, especially in times of mortality threat. Indeed, the pandemic led younger people to feel older than their chronological age (Heller, 2020) and instigated smaller emotionally dense social networks (Williams, 2021).

One limitation of the study is the absence of a pre-pandemic baseline. However, the patterns are strikingly similar to past studies based on the same experimental paradigm (e.g., Fung and Carstensen, 2006). Further, by surveying two independent samples during each phase of the pandemic, the findings underscore the robustness of the pattern. Our plan is to recruit another sample after the pandemic fully ends and compare those results with findings from the present study. Another limitation is that we did not directly assess future time perspective (FTP). One alternative explanation is that younger adults chose their close family member not because of perceived mortality threat to themselves but as a result of the threat to their older relatives (e.g., parents or grandparents). In Sample 2 (but not in every sample), after participants indicated their choice of close or distant partners, we collected exploratory open-ended responses on why participants made their choices. To address the above alternative explanation, we further examined the open-ended responses. None of the participants mentioned the mortality threat to their older relatives. Instead, most participants mentioned that family made them feel calm and protected. Most participants only mentioned their family in general. However, among participants who mentioned specific family members, younger adults were most likely to mention their wife/husband, followed by sister/brother/cousin, followed by parents, grandparents, and children. Thus, these results provide preliminary evidence that it is less likely that younger adults chose their close family member as a result of perceived mortality threat to their older relatives. Rather, they were thinking about threat to their mortality. We encourage future research to directly measure future time perspective.

In summary, these findings are among the first to examine social preferences across a prolonged exposure to life-threatening conditions. Future research may examine whether there is a duration threshold for the prolonged exposure and the threshold value. We also demonstrate the anticipation that life-threatening conditions will end restores younger adults’ motivational preferences. Findings add to evidence that age differences in social preferences are adaptive and shaped by reminders of the fragility of life.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by George Washington University Institutional Review Board. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

LJ developed the study concept, designed the study, and collected and analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. LC revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Partial support for the project was provided by NIA grant R37-8816 to LC.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.