Cognitive skills are influenced by our genes and lifestyle. The heritability of general cognitive ability might be as high as 80% during specific periods of the life course (Plomin and Deary, 2015). It may also be that individuals who do well in school and take part in stimulating activities are in fact genetically predisposed to increase their cognitive reserve (Bosma et al., 2002). It has been suggested that different cognitive abilities may have different patterns of heritability with age. For example, Pahlen et al. (2018) suggested genetic influences may decline with age on measures of fluid abilities, such as executive functions and processing speed. For measures of crystallised abilities, such as language skills, genetic influences may increase with age. The authors also suggested that word knowledge may be particularly influenced by gene-environment interactions because it is susceptible to practice, such as reading books (Pahlen et al., 2018). It has previously been estimated that lifestyle factors play a larger role in predicting individual variation in cognitive ageing trajectories (Finkel et al., 1998). The first report to use a population-based genetic analysis suggested that about 75% of the variance in cognitive ability from childhood to old age was due to environmental factors (Deary et al., 2012). This can be likened to a specific genetic risk of developing a heart condition, which can be lessened by following a healthy diet and taking up physical exercise. An active and engaged lifestyle is supported as being beneficial for brain health (Fratiglioni et al., 2004; Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project, 2008; Hertzog et al., 2008; Park et al., 2014), while engaging activities in mid- or late-life may be associated with lower risk of dementia (Valenzuela and Sachdev, 2006; Valenzuela et al., 2011).

Understanding whether people believe genetic or lifestyle factors more strongly determine our thinking skills is important. It is largely unknown whether the public attribute changes in cognitive skills to genetic or lifestyle factors, and how those beliefs impact engagement in behaviours and activities that might be beneficial to those skills. There are three ways knowledge of genetic risks of disease can affect health-related behaviours, namely they can encourage (McClure, 2002), discourage (Hunt et al., 2000) or have no effect on health-related behaviours (Milne et al., 2000). For example, people diagnosed with a familial condition heightening their cholesterol levels were less likely to believe in the contribution of lifestyle factors, instead favouring medication to reduce cholesterol levels (Marteau et al., 2004). If this was similar for cognitive skills (belief in there being predominantly genetic determinants), people would be less likely to believe that brain-healthy behaviours can improve those skills and, therefore, engage in proactive behaviours to a lesser extent. However, those who were informed they were at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (investigated through APOE ε4 genotyping) were more likely to change their health behaviours (diet, exercise or taking supplements) to reduce their risk than those informed that their genetic risk was not higher (Chao et al., 2008). Those findings may be confounded by there being no effective preventative medication for Alzheimer’s Disease. It is possible, therefore, that given the option of medication people would choose that over lifestyle changes (Marteau et al., 2004). As previous studies have often considered those already more likely to develop a specific condition, it is important to know how people with no prior knowledge of the presence (or absence) of higher risk engage in health-related behaviours.

There are notable differences between younger and older people in their beliefs about changes in cognitive skills. Younger participants are more likely to expect cognitive abilities to decline sooner and more dramatically, which suggests they may be guided by stereotypes about ageing. That is in contrast to older adults who are more likely to expect those abilities to be better maintained or show a more gradual loss. This could be the product of lived experience, either their own and/or those of their family and friends (Hertzog and Hultsch, 2000; Vaportzis and Gow, 2018). Previously reported findings from the current survey suggested older respondents had more optimistic expectations about when cognitive changes might begin, that is, that changes might begin later (Vaportzis and Gow, 2018). Our intention was, therefore, to extend those analyses and consider whether age differences in people’s beliefs about cognitive ageing might also be reflected in their attributions of genetic versus lifestyle determinants of those changes.

It may be that general beliefs around ageing (also cognitive) may differ from beliefs individuals have about themselves. For example, although older adults may be more optimistic when estimating the timing of expected (or experienced) changes in cognitive skills on average (Hertzog and Hultsch, 2000; Vaportzis and Gow, 2018), they have been found to be more likely to evaluate their cognitive abilities as poorer and report more problems with their memory than younger adults (Zanardo et al., 2006). Additionally, older adults (especially those over the age of 75) were more likely than younger adults to attribute greater importance to uncontrollable factors in terms of age-related changes (Zanardo et al., 2006). For example, observing health-related declines may prompt older adults to feel less in control (Robinson and Lachman, 2017). This might suggest that those over 75 expect their cognitive abilities are dictated by factors they cannot control (such as, genes) and may, therefore, perceive cognitive ageing as fixed.

Attitudes toward ageing, especially with regard to the malleability or fixedness of ageing on a person’s traits and attributes (which can include intelligence), and the influence of such attitudes on task performance has been considered (Plaks and Chasteen, 2013; Neel and Lassetter, 2015; Weiss et al., 2016; Weiss, 2018). While this evidence presents a compelling case for predicting peoples’ beliefs about cognitive ageing and engagement in brain-healthy behaviours, brain health is rarely the focus of such surveys, which led to the development of the current approach.

Phelan and colleagues conducted a survey to explore what people believe is important for successful ageing (Phelan et al., 2004). Having the kind of genes to age successfully was important to over 60% of respondents and being able to make lifestyle choices affecting how we age was important to over 85% of respondents (Phelan et al., 2004). Surveys on brain health in the United Kingdom and United States found that more than 9 in 10 respondents believe cognitive skills can be improved with age (AARP, 2015; Vaportzis and Gow, 2018). While knowledge of potentially beneficial lifestyle factors varied, those rated as most important to maintaining or improving cognitive skills from the United Kingdom survey included having a sense of purpose, eating a healthy diet, challenging the mind, getting adequate sleep, and keeping physically active (Vaportzis and Gow, 2018). Although people recommended many of those lifestyles and behaviours to others to improve or maintain their cognitive skills with age (Niechcial et al., 2019) and reported engaging in many of them, they rarely did so to specifically benefit their cognitive skills (AARP, 2015; Vaportzis and Gow, 2018).

Females may also be more likely than males to believe people can learn new things at any age, and more willing and motivated to improve their cognitive skills compared to males (AARP, 2014, 2017; Vaportzis and Gow, 2018). On the other hand, older people reported being less willing to do something to improve their cognitive skills (AARP, 2017). Younger people are more likely to believe their thinking skills may be improved. Understanding the varying “windows of opportunity” to introduce positive brain health messaging at different stages of the lifespan may, therefore, be possible but requires a better understanding of what people are likely to believe during different life stages. Taking that knowledge forward then, middle-aged adults (aged 40–65) may be able to introduce new habits in good time to improve their cognition (Gates et al., 2019). It is important to understand their beliefs about cognitive ageing to maximise the potential of health messaging focused on lifestyle changes to help them make proactive choices sooner. Ultimately, this may mean that these interventions implemented in ample time have the desired effect of reducing or eliminating the risk of cognitive decline and dementia (Gates et al., 2019). Attributions of how changes in cognitive skills might be determined by genetic and lifestyle factors, and the engagement in lifestyles and behaviours deemed beneficial to those skills, were, therefore, examined in a large, representative survey of adults aged 40 and over in the United Kingdom.

This was the first United Kingdom-wide survey asking adults about their beliefs regarding the genetic and lifestyle determinants of cognitive ageing. Most of our respondents believed that changes in cognitive skills were equally determined by genetic and lifestyle factors, which is perhaps less optimistic than empirical evidence that lifestyle plays a larger role (Deary et al., 2012). In our sample, while females and males mostly believed in the equal influence of genes and lifestyle, females were more likely than males to report this belief; males were more likely than females to believe that genes influence our cognitive skills to a greater extent. Females were previously reported to be more likely than males to believe people can learn new things at any age, and more willing and motivated to improve their cognitive skills compared to males (AARP, 2014, 2017; Vaportzis and Gow, 2018). We might, therefore, suggest that is partly due to a higher proportion of males believing in a stronger influence of genetic factors, potentially perceiving those abilities to be less malleable.

There were no significant differences between the three age groups in their beliefs about the genetic/lifestyle contributions, though this could be due to a very small number of respondents in the old-old group. This is somewhat in contrast with the literature on differences across age groups in perceptions of age-related cognitive changes (Hertzog and Hultsch, 2000). Previous studies have shown that older adults (and especially those over 75) are more likely to report uncontrollable factors as more important with regards to age-related changes (Zanardo et al., 2006; Robinson and Lachman, 2017). By extension, we might expect older adults to report less malleable and more rigid views of the determinants of cognitive ageing (i.e., a stronger endorsement of genetic factors). Although to some extent these differences were exhibited by our respondents, the small size of the old-old group relative to other groups limited our ability to make those comparisons, warranting further exploration.

Self-ratings of cognitive ability were not associated with beliefs about the contributions of genes and lifestyle to changes in cognitive skills. However, those beliefs were associated with how malleable they thought cognitive skills might be in later life and whether they knew how to support those changes. Those beliefs were also associated with the behaviours our respondents reported doing. Respondents believing that genes were the stronger influence were more likely to engage in games and brain training and less likely to read, watch the news and engage in educational programmes.

It could be argued that those who think genetic factors are more important to cognitive ageing are engaging more in behaviours with unclear benefits for brain health, such as brain training, and less in behaviours deemed good for cognitive skills, comprising mental challenge and novelty, such as learning new things or participating in educational activities. This might provide partial support to studies linking genetic risks for some diseases and health-related behaviours (Marteau et al., 2004; Chao et al., 2008), where the individuals at risk show preference for ways that might appear more direct in terms of preventing the disease (in this case endorsing brain training) than a potentially less direct/more challenging lifestyle change, such as trying new activities. While respondents who believed genetic factors were the stronger contributor still engaged in certain behaviours, they were not more likely to engage in mentally stimulating activities, such as novel learning, which has been reported as an important contributor to maintaining/improving cognitive skills (Park et al., 2014). On the other hand, respondents who believed in an equal influence of genetic and lifestyle factors were less likely to engage in behaviours, such as meditation and playing a musical instrument. This is somewhat in line with previous research (AARP, 2015; Vaportzis and Gow, 2018) suggesting that people generally do not engage in certain behaviours, although they would recommend those behaviours to others to improve their cognitive skills (Niechcial et al., 2019). This finding points to a need for brain health messaging highlighting the importance of engaging in brain-healthy activities and behaviours.

Our survey was carried out in the United Kingdom and although our findings are consistent with US-derived data, beliefs and attitudes toward cognitive ageing may differ in other countries and cultures. Future surveys should focus on non-Western countries to allow comparisons; the multi-country, multilanguage Global Brain Health Survey is a positive development in that regard (Budin-Ljosne et al., 2020). Our study does not allow in-depth analysis of the data reported. Future studies should seek to explore the context-rich aspects of people’s reported beliefs, perhaps supplementing the survey methodology with qualitative designs. Equally, as this was a cross-sectional survey, we cannot imply that beliefs determine behaviour; studies supporting behaviour change via modifying beliefs and understanding about brain health would be of value. Our survey was exploratory in nature and examined the relationship of people’s beliefs regarding genetic and lifestyle factors contributing to their cognitive skills in later life and their engagement in potentially brain-healthy behaviours. We did not set out to test any particular theory in our survey, which can be seen as a limitation of our work. In light of previous literature, such as malleability and fixedness of ageing, and capacity for change (Plaks and Chasteen, 2013; Neel and Lassetter, 2015; Weiss et al., 2016; Weiss, 2018), we would only be able to offer speculative suggestions about our findings.

Although descriptive, our results suggest that a higher proportion of males than females believe that cognitive skills are influenced by our genes rather than lifestyle factors, which may mean they see those skills as less malleable. People who believe genes are the greater contributor may not believe cognitive skills can be improved with age, appear less likely to know how to improve those skills, and consequently may not engage in activities and behaviours that could benefit those skills. Our results indicate a need for clear brain health messaging to ensure the general public’s beliefs are in line with current empirical findings and that everyone knows how to maintain their cognitive skills with age. This could be achieved through resources, such as Age UK’s Staying Sharp webpages (Age UK, 2017) and AARP’s online resources related to brain health (AARP, n.d.). It is also important that this messaging reaches people at an earlier age (for example, from midlife), so that they may take proactive steps toward brain health throughout the life course. It would be useful, for example, to highlight that lifestyle factors may have a potentially greater role in improving or maintaining brain health, especially given those factors are more likely to be amenable to personal control.

The data, analytic methods, and study materials relating to this study will be made available to other researchers upon request. This survey was not preregistered.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Heriot-Watt University School of Social Sciences Ethics Committee. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

AJG and EV designed the study and collected the data. MAN and AJG analysed the data. MAN drafted the manuscript. All authors made substantial contributions, revised this manuscript, and approved the final version to be published.

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.