X-Message-Number: 30495 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Longevity attitudes and reactions to cryonics Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:15:48 +0100 Kogan, N., Porter, M., & Tucker, J. (2007, Nov.). Structure and correlates of pro- and anti-longevity attitudes in a sample of older adults. Poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America. San Francisco, CA. I posted an abstract previously from an earlier study using the same questionnaire. This one found an additional dimension in a factor analysis. The dimensions were (3 strongest questions, negative correlations preceded by "-"): Utopian Vision: Increase budget for this research Extend even if prolonged chronic illness Longevity research as duty to future generations Socio-Economic Burden: Too many seniors ruining economy Will overwhelm health-care resources Reduce opportunities for younger workers Personal Emotional Rejection: - Families benefit from cross-generational interaction Extension pointless Old age has drawbacks Sacrifice for Longevity: Longevity worthwhile without sex - Do not want to be dependent in old age Estimate satisfaction greater at 110 than 75) These are in order of decreasing percent of variance (19, 14, 13, 7). So, this last one may not be that stable/reliable. A factor analysis of the Badger (1998) attitude questions (logged data, 92 outliers removed, jackknife method; 3 varimax rotated factors). Factors presented in decreasing percentages of variance: Utopian Vision questions in decreasing order of strength: I'm very optimistic about humankind's future and want to be there to see and participate in the amazing advances that will be made. I'm excited about the prospect of waking up in a body made young again through bio-technological advances. I could accomplish much more with my life if it were significantly extended. I look forward to a time when we won't have to suffer the loss of our friends and family because of aging and disease. I love being alive and I want to remain alive and healthy for as long as I can. Being frozen is no guarantee that I will be revived someday, but I know my chances are zero if I am buried or cremated. Personal Emotional Rejection questions in decreasing order of strength: I'm too young and healthy to even care about it at this point. Cryonically preserving me would be too hard/weird for my family/ friends to handle. I would not want to wake up in a future time without my family or friends around. I don't think about Cryonics because I don't like thinking about death. Extending one's life span through Cryonics is unnatural, selfish, and immoral. Cryonics is a bad idea because it would lead to an overpopulation problem. Socio-Economic Burden questions in decreasing order of strength: Dealing with wills, insurance policies, and other legal matters is too much trouble to make Cryonics worthwhile. The cost of having my body frozen is far too expensive for me. Cryonics doesn't interest me because I just don't think it will work. I don't think that people in the future will have any interest in reviving frozen bodies. These factors are in order of decreasing percent of variance (21, 14, 13). Almost identical to the findings from Kogan (2007), for his first three factors. Socio-Economic Burden questions tend to focus on the costs to society in Kogan, while they tend to address costs to the individual in Badger. This reflects the selection of questions, as does any factor analysis. This limitation is overcome somewhat in the earlier presented regression results, where the relationships between attitudes/dispositions and an action item are estimated. There appears to be considerable overlap between the Kogan Life Extension Questionnaire and Associated Cryonicists Consumer Survey by Badger. There appear to be three important factors. First, Personal Emotional Rejection, or what is called reflexive avoidance or attentional withdrawal in terror management theory. The strongest effect is "too young", then the avoidance of death thoughts for the family/friends and the self, and of the loss of interpersonal relationships becomes apparent. Finally, rejection of cryonics on moral grounds and on hypothesized practical limitations of the carrying capacity of the planet. Thus, it appears that there is an attempt to withdraw attention from the topic as rapidly as possible, in the first case, without even considering the issue, that is, delaying consideration as irrelevant at this time. Only after an indication that death related topics are to be avoided, do moral and practical considerations make their appearance. This reflexive avoidance shows why direct marketing of cryonics is ineffective and that the focus on death avoidance may be counter productive. Next comes a rational balancing of the benefits and costs. The optimistic Utopian Vision is to be young again, to be able to accomplish more, to avoid the loss of interpersonal relationships, and to continue a healthy and enjoyable existence. This view emphasizes the possibility of cryonics working. Finally, the time and resources that would have to be sacrificed, and the risk that cryonics would fail. This reflects the standard view of how the utility of an option is evaluated rationally, by integrating the costs, benefits, and the probability of success. Unfortunately, this rational evaluation will never be reached by most, because of the attentional withdrawal, which is triggered by the topic. The Kogan, et al work was financed by a small grant from The SAGES Program (SPSSI Action Grants for Experienced Scholars). (SPSSI = Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues): "The SAGES Program was set up to encourage our age 60 and over and retired members to apply their knowledge to helping solve social problems or to assist policy makers to solve social problems." The justification was, in part, that there had been no psychological studies in this area - attitudes toward longevity - even though there had been fundamental breakthroughs in biotechnology effecting this area and the area was being hotly debated among bio-ethicists. So, it looks like Badger (1998) was about ten years ahead of the crowd with his preliminary study of attitudes. The cryonics movement paid absolutely no attention to it as far as I can see, even though it contains results crucial to development of an effective promotion strategy. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30495