61 Graduate Student Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 19 Copyright 2022 by the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology Teachers College, Columbia University EǓǾȅȖΡ�^Ǔǹǟে�ГljƺljΡ�ƺǿǏ��ȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�XƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ Genna M. Mashinchi and Craig Ravesloot, Rural Institute for Disabilities, University of Montana KLjǴǓljȠǩΚǓॸ�eǦǩș�șȠȣǏΡ�ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓș�ȠǦǓ�ȖǓǹƺȠǩȅǿșǦǩȒș�LjǓȠΛǓǓǿ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡॹ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�শE^�ষॹ�ƺǿǏ�ljȅǾǾȣ- nity participation among older adults. Method: 203 United States older adults (age 55+) were recruited through MTurk to complete surveys and a memory task. A multiple linear regression was used to regress MSE and community participation. Main Findings: Entering all variables into the model explained 45% of the variance in community participation (R2 = ঀࢶࢵॹ��ǏǴঀ�[ࢳ�઀�ঀࢲࢵॹ�'শࢸॹࢲࢵࢲ�ষ�e�઀ࢷࢲ�ঀࢷࢳॹ�Ȓ�ઃ�ঀࢲࢱࢱষঀ�E^��Λƺș�ȒȅșǩȠǩΚǓǹΡ�ȖǓǹƺȠǓǏ�Ƞȅ�ljȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�শݾ�઀�ঀࢹࢴॹ�Ȓ�ઃ� ঀࢲࢱࢱষॹ�ƺș�ȒȖǓǏǩljȠǓǏঀ�/ȅΛǓΚǓȖॹ�ljȅǿȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǓșॹ�ΛȅȖșǓ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�শݾ�઀�েঀࢳࢳॹ�Ȓ�઀�ঀࢲࢱࢱষ�ƺǿǏ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ� ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠইljȅǿljǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠ�শݾ�઀�ঀࢷࢳॹ�Ȓ�ઃ�ঀࢲࢱࢱষ�ȒȖǓǏǩljȠǓǏ�ǦǩǠǦǓȖ�ǹǓΚǓǹș�ȅǟ�ljȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩȅǿঀ� Conclusions: It is reasonable to conclude that one’s beliefs about their memory ability is an important consideration when one chooses to engage in community events. ?Dzͧ͡ȤȵǮȸ࣒�ȝDzȝȤȵͧ�ȸDzȘǾणDzϭǨǙǨ࣓ͧ�ǨȤȝȝɂȞȈȿͧ�ȱǙȵȿȈǨȈȱǙȿȈȤȞ࣓�ǙǿȈȞǿ࣓�ǮDzȝDzȞȿȈǙ࣓��ȘͬȅDzȈȝDzȵहȸ�ǮȈȸDzǙȸDzࣚ� As the world’s older adult population grows, old- er individuals are susceptible to a heightened risk of experiencing age-related cognitive challenges, such as dementia (Aartsen et al., 2002, Fritsch et al., 2005). To help combat this growing problem, researchers have worked to identify factors that can support or improve cognitive functioning. One such factor that has gathered extensive support in the literature is participation in community leisure activities, such as ones that include social engagement (e.g., attend- ing events with friends, having dinner with friends, participating in a card game group; Fratiglioni et al., 2004; Scarmeas et al., 2001; Sobral & Paúl, 2013; Ver- ghese et al., 2003). However, participating in these ƺljȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș�ljƺǿ�LjǓ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠ� ǩǟ�ȅǿǓ�Ǧƺș�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾ- bering or concentrating, which might impair their ability to track a conversation, answer questions, or carry out multi-step instructions to complete an ac- tivity (Cowan, 2014). Additionally, if one feels that their cognitive abilities are poor, they might be more likely to avoid these activities, instead choosing to iso- ǹƺȠǓ� ȠǦǓǾșǓǹΚǓș� Ƞȅ� LjΡȒƺșș� ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿljǩǿǠ� ǏǩГljȣǹȠǩǓș� ȅȖ� feelings (Nieboer et al, 2020). To examine this idea further, the present study examined the relationships LjǓȠΛǓǓǿ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡॹ� ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡॹ� and community participation among older adults. EǓǾȅȖΡ�^Ǔǹǟে�ГljƺljΡ � EǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�শE^�ষ�ǩș�ǏǓЙǿǓǏ�ƺș�ȠǦǓ�LjǓǹǩǓǟș� an individual holds about their memory ability (Lalitha & Aswartha Reddy, 2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Sawin, 2021). The concept of MSE stems from Ban- ǏȣȖƺঢ়ș�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ȠǦǓȅȖΡॹ�ΛǦǩljǦ�ȖǓǟǓȖș�Ƞȅ�ƺǿ�ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣ- al’s self-perception of their ability to organize and exe- cute tasks under given conditions (Bandura, 1997). In line with past research that has supported the positive relationship between MSE and memory performance, �ƺǿǏȣȖƺ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩΦǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȠǦȅșǓ�ΛǩȠǦ�ǹȅΛ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ� perform poorer on tasks, compared to those with high- ǓȖ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�শ�ƺǿǏȣȖƺॹࢺࢹࢺࢲ�আ��ǓƺȣǏȅǩǿ�૭��ǓșȖǩljǦ- ard, 2011). As Bandura notes, this poorer performance occurs as those who doubt their ability to carry out a task are less invested in the tasks, which results in less ǓАȅȖȠॹ�ȒǓȖșǩșȠǓǿljǓॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǾȅȠǩΚƺȠǩȅǿআ�șǓȠȠǩǿǠ�ǹȅΛǓȖ�Ǡȅƺǹș� for themselves; experiencing higher anxiety; and com- mitting less to accomplish these goals (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011; Lalitha & Aswartha Reddy, 2021). MSE is an important construct within metamem- ory that has been used to explain the cognitive decline that occurs with aging (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011; /ǓȖȠΦȅǠ�ǓȠ�ƺǹঀॹࢸࢹࢺࢲষঀ�XƺșȠ�ȖǓșǓƺȖljǦ�Ǧƺș�ǩǏǓǿȠǩЙǓǏ�ƺ�ljȅȖ- relation between MSE and memory task performance for older adults, with higher MSE associated with bet- ter memory performance (Lalitha & Aswartha Reddy, 2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Sawin, 2021). Other studies have found evidence that higher MSE is pre- dictive of memory performance in cases of both labo- ratory and simulated-everyday episodic memory tasks (Turvey et al., 2000; West et al., 1996). In addition to being positively related to memory performance, such that low MSE is related to poor memory performance (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011; Lalitha & Aswar- tha Reddy, 2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Sawin, 2021), MSE has been found to be negatively related to beliefs about forgetting, such that stronger beliefs 62 about forgetting and aging being related was associat- ed with lower MSE (Vallet et al., 2015). In addition to being related to one’s ability to remember, MSE has been shown to be related to one’s ability to complete șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșঀ�^ƺǹǩǿƺș�শࢲࢳࢱࢳষ�ǟȅȣǿǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ǩș� related to self-management behaviors in older adults who live alone. Similarly, Vellone et al. (2016) found ȠǦƺȠ�ǩǿ�ȠǦȅșǓ�ΛǩȠǦ�ǩǾȒƺǩȖǓǏ�ljȅǠǿǩȠǩȅǿॹ�ȅǿǓঢ়ș�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺ- cy in being able to care for themselves was an import- ƺǿȠ� ǟƺljȠȅȖ� ȠǦƺȠ� ǩǿМȣǓǿljǓǏ� șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ� ƺLjǩǹǩȠǩǓșঀ� 2ǿ� ǟƺljȠॹ� ȅǿǓঢ়ș� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ǾǓǏǩƺȠǓǏ� ȠǦǓ� ȖǓǹƺȠǩȅǿșǦǩȒ� LjǓȠΛǓǓǿ� working memory ability and self-care ability, illustrat- ǩǿǠ� ȠǦǓ� ǩǿМȣǓǿljǓ� ȅǟ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ� ǓΚǓǿ�ΛǦǓǿ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ǩș� ȒȅȅȖঀ�(ǩΚǓǿ� ȠǦǓșǓ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠșॹ�tǓǹǹȅǿǓ� ǓȠ� ƺǹঀ� recommended interventions that could increase self-ef- ЙljƺljΡ� ƺǿǏॹ� ǩǿ� ȠȣȖǿॹ� ǩǾȒȖȅΚǓ� șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓঀ� �ǏǏǩȠǩȅǿƺǹǹΡॹ� ȒƺșȠ�ȖǓșǓƺȖljǦ�ƺȒȒǓƺȖș�Ƞȅ�șȣǠǠǓșȠ�ƺ�ǠǓǿǏǓȖ�ǏǩАǓȖǓǿljǓ�ǩǿ� MSE, with Fallan and Opstad (2016), Huang (2012), ƺǿǏ� vǓșȠ� ǓȠ� ƺǹঀ� শࢳࢱࢱࢳষ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠ� ȠǦƺȠ� ǾƺǹǓș� ȖǓȒȅȖȠǓǏ� ǦǩǠǦǓȖ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡॹ� ƺǿǏ�ΛǓȖǓ�ǾȅȖǓ� ǹǩǷǓǹΡ� Ƞȅ� ȅΚǓȖǓșȠǩ- mate their abilities, when completing cognitive tasks. Working Memory Working memory is a memory/executive func- tioning ability that allows one to actively hold and ma- nipulate information for a brief amount of time, such as reordering numbers or completing mathematical problems (Aben et al., 2012; Cowan, 2008; McCabe et al., 2010; Miyake & Shah, 1999). Working memory has been measured in multiple ways, primarily with mental arithmetic or digit span tasks (Wechsler, 2008). Due to its role in planning, working memo- ry ability is needed to complete vital self-care tasks, such as remembering to take medications or remem- bering that one took the medications. In fact, In- sel et al. (2006) found that working memory tasks ƺǿǏ� ǓΠǓljȣȠǩΚǓ� ǟȣǿljȠǩȅǿ� ΛǓȖǓ� ȠǦǓ� ȅǿǹΡ� șǩǠǿǩЙljƺǿȠ� predictors in a model used to predict medication ƺǏǦǓȖǓǿljǓঀ� XȅȅȖ� ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ljƺǿ� ƺǹșȅ� ƺАǓljȠ� an individual’s participation in the community, as working memory is necessary for several aspects of social-cognitive information processing, including tracking a conversation, the information presented, relationships between others, names just learned, and others’ feelings towards topics (Meyer et al., 2012). Present Study Although past research has explored the relationship between MSE and memory ability in general (Lalitha & Aswartha Reddy, 2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Sawin, 2021), to the best of the authors’ knowledge, only two studies have appeared to examine the relation- ship between MSE and working memory. One study, ljȅǿǏȣljȠǓǏ�LjΡ�/ȅАǾƺǿ�ƺǿǏ�^ljǦȖƺΛ�শࢸࢱࢱࢳষॹ�ǩǿΚǓșȠǩǠƺȠ- ǓǏ�ȠǦǓ�ǩǿМȣǓǿljǓ�ȅǟ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ƺǿǏ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ȅǿ�ǾƺȠǦǓǾƺȠǩljƺǹ�ȒȖȅLjǹǓǾেșȅǹΚǩǿǠ�ȒǓȖǟȅȖǾƺǿljǓঀ�/ȅА- Ǿƺǿ�ƺǿǏ�^ljǦȖƺΛ�ǟȅȣǿǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�Λƺș�LjǓǿǓЙljǩƺǹ� as demands on working memory increased, and these ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȒȖȅȒȅșǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȅǿǓঢ়ș�ƺLjǩǹǩȠΡ�Ƞȅ�ǓГljǩǓǿȠǹΡ�ƺǿǏ� șȠȖƺȠǓǠǩljƺǹǹΡ�șȅǹΚǓ�ȒȖȅLjǹǓǾș�ǩǿljȖǓƺșǓǏ�ΛǩȠǦ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡঀ� Additionally, Mashinchi et al. (2022) used a hierarchi- cal regression analysis and found that MSE explained a large, unique portion of variance in working memory ability after controlling for age, depression, and anxiety. Further, the authors of the present study are un- aware of any research that has investigated the relation- ship between MSE and community participation. This șȠȣǏΡ�șȅȣǠǦȠ�Ƞȅ�Йǹǹ�ȠǦǩș�ǠƺȒ�ǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�ǹǩȠǓȖƺȠȣȖǓ�LjΡ�ǓΠƺǾ- ining the relationship between MSE and community participation. Hypotheses are as follows: 1) MSE and working memory ability will be positively correlated ΛǩȠǦ�ljȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�ΛǦǩǹǓ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ǩǿ�ljȅǾ- ȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷș�ƺǿǏ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠ�ƺǿǏ� concentrating will be negatively correlated with com- munity participation, with all variables having statisti- ljƺǹǹΡ�șǩǠǿǩЙljƺǿȠ�ǩǿǏǓȒǓǿǏǓǿȠ�ǓАǓljȠș�ȅǿ�ljȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖ- ȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩȅǿআ�ƺǿǏࢳ�ষ�ǿȅȠǩljǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ljǦƺǿǠǓșॹ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ� ǩǿ�ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖ- ing and concentrating will all be negatively correlated with MSE while working memory ability will be pos- itively correlated with MSE, with all variables having șȠƺȠǩșȠǩljƺǹǹΡ� șǩǠǿǩЙljƺǿȠ� ǩǿǏǓȒǓǿǏǓǿȠ� ǓАǓljȠș� ȅǿ� E^�ঀ Method Participants Participants were all United States residents over the age of 55 and were recruited through MTurk, an online community that completes surveys for mone- ȠƺȖΡ� ȖǓΛƺȖǏșঀ��ǿ�EeȣȖǷ�ЙǹȠǓȖ�Λƺș�ƺȒȒǹǩǓǏ� Ƞȅ�ǓǿșȣȖǓ� that all participants were United States residents. An EeȣȖǷ�ƺǠǓ�ЙǹȠǓȖ�Λƺș�ƺȒȒǹǩǓǏॹ� șȣljǦ� ȠǦƺȠ�ȅǿǹΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩljǩ- ȒƺǿȠș�ȠǦƺȠ�ЙȠ�ΛǩȠǦǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�ƺǠǓ�ȒƺȖƺǾǓȠǓȖ�ȅǟࢶࢶ��ƺǿǏ�ȅǹǏǓȖ� were able to participate in the study. In order to partic- ipate in the study, potential participants had to achieve MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 63 MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION an approved task completion rate (HIT rate) of 95%, meaning that they had to demonstrate worker quali- ty by being approved by 95% of the researchers that they had completed studies for in the past. Participants were excluded if they reported an age that was not over 55, if more than 5% of their data were missing, or if their data did not appear to be of high quality. Two hundred and three eligible participants consent- ed to participate in the study. One participant did not complete the demographic questionnaire but was in- ljǹȣǏǓǏ�ǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�Йǿƺǹ�ƺǿƺǹΡșǩșঀ���੢ࢱঀࢱࢶ�ǾȅǿǓȠƺȖΡ� ǩǿljǓǿ- tive was awarded to participants in exchange for their time. An a priori power analysis for a linear multiple ȖǓǠȖǓșșǩȅǿॹ� ЙΠǓǏ� ǾȅǏǓǹॹ� șǩǿǠǹǓ� ȖǓǠȖǓșșǩȅǿ� ljȅǓГljǩǓǿȠ� was conducted on G*Power 3.1. This power analysis was two-tailed, the alpha error probability was set to .05, and the desired power was set to .95. Results of this analysis yielded a sample size of at least 89 partic- ipants would be needed to achieve these parameters. Assessments and Measures Demographics Self-reported demographic information regard- ing age, gender, ethnicity, and educational attainment was collected from each participant. In the analyses, gender was binary coded, with 1 = male and 2 = fe- male. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate (yes/no) if they had noticed their ability to remember things had changed over the years. Further, partici- pants completed the Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Disability (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2015), which queries any dif- ЙljȣǹȠΡ� ΛǩȠǦ� șǓǓǩǿǠॹ� ǦǓƺȖǩǿǠॹ� ΛƺǹǷǩǿǠॹ� ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠই concentrating, communicating, and/or completing self-care tasks using a 4-point Likert scale with 1 = no ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ƺǿǏࢵ��઀�ljƺǿǿȅȠ�Ǐȅ�ƺȠ�ƺǹǹঀ�eǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡ� analyzed the data for items pertaining to remember- ing/concentrating and completing self-care tasks. EDzȝȤȵͧ�^DzȘǾण�ϭǨǙǨͧ� To assess participants’ MSE, the present study ȣșǓǏ� ƺǿ� ƺǏƺȒȠƺȠǩȅǿ� ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ� EǓǾȅȖΡ� ^Ǔǹǟে�ГljƺljΡ� Questionnaire (MSEQ; Berry et al., 1989), which is designed to assess participants’ prediction of their memory ability. The authors of the present study adapted the MSEQ by including only the MSEQ’s ǏǩǠǩȠ� ȖǓljƺǹǹ� ǩȠǓǾșঀ� 'ȣȖȠǦǓȖॹ� ȠǦǓ� ǩȠǓǾș� ΛǓȖǓ� ǾȅǏǩЙǓǏ� Ƞȅ�șȒǓljǩЙljƺǹǹΡ�ƺșǷ�ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺǿȠș�Ƞȅ�ȒȖǓǏǩljȠ�ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǾǓǾȅ- ry ability on the forward, backward, and sequencing conditions of the digit span memory task (adapted from Wechsler, 2008). The present study’s measure of E^��Λƺș� ǟȅȣǿǏ� Ƞȅ�LjǓ�ǦǩǠǦǹΡ� ȖǓǹǩƺLjǹǓ� শݽ�઀� ঀࢴࢺষॹ�ΛǩȠǦ� alpha levels for each of the conditions as follows: ǟȅȖΛƺȖǏ� শݽ�઀� ঀࢹࢸষॹ�LjƺljǷΛƺȖǏ� শݽ�઀� ঀࢸࢹষॹ� ƺǿǏ� șǓȕȣǓǿlj- ǩǿǠ� শݽ� ઀� ঀࢺࢸষঀ� ^ǓǓ�eƺLjǹǓ� �ࢲ ǟȅȖ� ǩȠǓǾș� ƺǿǏ� ǩȠǓǾ�ǾǓƺǿș Community Participation To assess community participation, participants were administered the ten-item “Undertaking Activi- ties” section of the Maastricht Social Participation Pro- ЙǹǓ�শE^XXআ�EƺȖș�ǓȠ�ƺǹঀॹࢺࢱࢱࢳ�ষঀ�eǦǩș�șǓljȠǩȅǿ�ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓș� LjȅȠǦ� ljȅǿșȣǾȒȠǩΚǓ� ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�ৄ�ΛǦǩljǦ� ǩș� ǏǓЙǿǓǏ� ƺș� ƺljȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș� ȠǦƺȠ� ƺǹǹȅΛ� ƺǿ� ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣƺǹ� Ƞȅ� LjǓǿǓЙȠ� ǟȖȅǾ� ȠǦǓ�ȅАǓȖǩǿǠș�ȅǟ�șȅljǩǓȠΡ�শǓঀǠঀॹ�ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩǿǠ�ǩǿ�ƺ�ljȅȣȖșǓ� or eating at a restaurant) — and formal social partic- ǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�ৄ�ΛǦǩljǦ�ǩș�ǏǓЙǿǓǏ�ƺș�ƺljȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș�ȠǦƺȠ�ƺǹǹȅΛ�ƺǿ� ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣƺǹ�Ƞȅ�ȅАǓȖ�ƺ�ljȅǿȠȖǩLjȣȠǩȅǿ�Ƞȅ�șȅljǩǓȠΡ�শǓঀǠঀॹ�ȒƺȖ- ticipating in organized volunteer work or organized clubs; Mars et al., 2009). The ten items asked partic- ipants to indicate the frequency with which they par- ȠǩljǩȒƺȠǓǏ� ǩǿ� șȒǓljǩЙlj� ljȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ� ƺljȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ�ȒƺșȠ� four weeks. The present study used a 4-point Likert scale as follows: 1 = not at all, 2 = less than once a week, 3 = once or twice a week, and 4 = more than twice a week. The MSPP has been found to have strong con- vergent validity and discriminant validity with the Frenchay Activities Index, which is a measure of par- ticipation, similar to the MSPP (Mars et al., 2009).. Working Memory Ability Given the novelty of this project, the authors sought to use a reliable working memory task that has strong psychometric properties (Wechsler, 2008). Thus, a digit span task was used. This digit span task was similar to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- Fourth Edition Working Memory Index (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2008). In the present study, the digit strings ȒȖǓșǓǿȠǓǏ� Ƞȅ� ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺǿȠș� ǏǩАǓȖǓǏ� ǟȖȅǾ� ȠǦǓ� șȠȖǩǿǠș� presented in the WAIS-IV, but the procedure was similar. The digits for this study’s task were present- ed on screen, making this a visual working memory task, whereas the WAIS-IV’s Digit Span Task is a ver- bal memory task. This change in format of the digit șȒƺǿ� ȠƺșǷ� Λƺș� ǾƺǏǓ� Ƞȅ� ƺΚȅǩǏ� ȒȖǓǏǩljȠǓǏ� ǏǩГljȣǹȠǩǓș� participants might encounter when completing an auditory digit span task, such as the need for working 64 MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT speakers, headphones, or assistive audio technology. Participants were asked to remember a set of num- bers under three varied conditions: forward, backward, ƺǿǏ�șǓȕȣǓǿljǩǿǠঀ�2ǿ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ljȅǿǏǩȠǩȅǿॹ�ǏǩǠǩȠ�șȒƺǿ�ǟȅȖ- ward, participants were instructed to recall the num- bers in the same order in which they were presented. In the second condition, digit span backward, participants were instructed to recall the numbers in the reverse or- der with which they were presented (e.g., if presented 2-3, asked to recall it as 3-2). In the third condition, digit span sequencing, participants were asked to recall the digits presented in order from least to greatest in value (e.g., if presented 4-1-8, asked to recall it as 1-4-8). The string of numbers was presented one by one in the middle of the screen for one second. The num- bers and timing were programmed to auto advance on the screen by a timer feature. An extra number was added to the digit string with each additional trial. Once all digits of a string were presented, the screen changed to include a text box in which participants were instructed to type in each number string with one space between each number. The text box was programmed to recognize the correct answer. If cor- rect, participants auto advanced to a digit string with an additional digit included. If not, participants were auto advanced to the second trial string, in which they were given another chance to answer a string with the same digit amount, identical to the WAIS-IV’s Digit Span. If participants answered this string incorrect- ly, participants auto advanced to the next condition (e.g., backward). Scores were summed automatical- ly by the software. The total Digit Span score rang- es from 0-48, with each condition’s score ranging from 0-16. The present study’s digit span task had an internal reliability score of .92. Additionally, the internal consistency reliability for the three condi- tions are as follows: Digit Span Forward = .75, Digit Span Backward = .81, Digit Span Sequencing = .78. Procedure The Institutional Review Board at the University of Montana approved this study prior to data collection. Data were collected online using a Qualtrics-based sur- vey that was posted on MTurk. First, participants re- viewed the consent form and consented to participate in the study. Once written consent was obtained, all participants completed the MSE items, and then com- pleted the digit span task. Next, participants completed the Washington Group Short Set, the MSPP, and the demographics questionnaire. Finally, all participants ȖǓΚǩǓΛǓǏ�ƺ�ǏǓLjȖǩǓЙǿǠ�ǟȅȖǾॹ�ȅȣȠǹǩǿǩǿǠ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȣȖȒȅșǓ�ȅǟ� the study, and received a code to input into MTurk to receive the monetary incentive for their participation. Results Participants The age of participants ranged from 55 to 80 years (M = 65.25, SD = 4.90) and were predominantly female (67%) and Caucasian (66%). Ninety-two percent of par- ticipants had an education greater than a high school degree. Thirty-three participants reported that they no- ticed that their ability to remember things had changed over the years. Seventy-eight participants reported that ȠǦǓΡ�ǏǩǏ�ǿȅȠ�ǦƺΚǓ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ� while 64% of participants reported that they did not ǦƺΚǓ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠ�ȅȖ�ljȅǿljǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠঀ�^ǓǓ�eƺ- ble 2 for the full demographic statistics of the sample. Hypothesis Tests The assumptions of linearity, normally distrib- uted errors, and uncorrelated errors were assessed for all variables. The Shapiro-Wilks tests for each variable Λƺș� șǩǠǿǩЙljƺǿȠ� শȒș�ઃঀࢶࢱষॹ� ƺǿǏ�ƺ�Κǩșȣƺǹ� ƺǿƺǹΡșǩș�ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ� data revealed a slight positive skew in the distribu- tion, as well as positively skewed clustering. Thus, the data for these analyses deviate somewhat from a normal distribution warranting caution for inter- ȒȖǓȠǩǿǠ� ȠǦǓ� șǩǠǿǩЙljƺǿljǓ� ȅǟ� ǩǿǟǓȖǓǿȠǩƺǹ� ȠǓșȠ� șȠƺȠǩșȠǩljșঀ� A collinearity analysis was conducted to examine any problematic correlations between predictor vari- ables. In accordance with Denis (2016), which stated that a VIF score of 10 suggests that a study’s parame- ȠǓȖݾ��Λƺș�ǿȅȠ�LjǓǩǿǠ�ȒȖǓljǩșǓǹΡ�ǓșȠǩǾƺȠǓǏ�ǏȣǓ�Ƞȅ�ƺ�ǹƺȖǠǓ� șȠƺǿǏƺȖǏ� ǓȖȖȅȖॹ� ȠǦǓ� ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡ� ȣșǓǏ� ƺ� t2'� ljȣȠȅА� score of 10. VIF scores for all variables passed this ljȣȠȅА� ǟȅȖ�LjȅȠǦ� ȖǓǠȖǓșșǩȅǿ� ƺǿƺǹΡșǓș� শƺǹǹ�t2'ș�ઃࢲ�ঀࢴࢺষঀ� Prior to computing the regression analyses, binary Pearson r correlations were computed to examine the relationships between each variable (see Table 3). Con- ȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ȖǓșȣǹȠș�ȖǓΚǓƺǹǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȠǦǓ�ȖǓ- lationships between community participation and the ǟȅǹǹȅΛǩǿǠ� ΚƺȖǩƺLjǹǓș� ΛǓȖǓ� LjȅȠǦ� șȠƺȠǩșȠǩljƺǹǹΡ� șǩǠǿǩЙljƺǿȠ� শȒș�ઃ� ঀࢲࢱࢱষ�ƺǿǏ�ȒȅșǩȠǩΚǓ� ǩǿ�ǏǩȖǓljȠǩȅǿॸ�E^�ॹ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ� ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠই concentrating. Working memory ability was negatively correlated with community participation (p < .001). 65 MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Community Participation A multiple linear regression analysis was con- ǏȣljȠǓǏ� Ƞȅ� ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓ� ǦȅΛ�E^�ॹ� ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ� ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ� șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ� ȠƺșǷșॹ� ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ� ΛǩȠǦ� ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠইljȅǿljǓǿ- trating, and working memory ability are associated with community participation. Entering all variables into the equation explained 45% of the variance in community participation (R2 = .45, Adj. R2 = .42, F(7, 141) = 16.26, p < .001; see Table 4). Greater MSE was positively related to more community participa- Ƞǩȅǿ�শݾ�઀� ঀࢹࢴॹ�Ȓ�ઃ� ঀࢲࢱࢱষॹ�ƺș�ȒȖǓǏǩljȠǓǏঀ�/ȅΛǓΚǓȖॹ�ljȅǿ- ȠȖƺȖΡ� Ƞȅ� ȠǦǓ� ЙȖșȠ� ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ΛȅȖșǓ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ƺLjǩǹǩȠΡ� শݾ� ઀� েঀࢳࢳॹ� Ȓ� ઀� ঀࢲࢱࢱষ� ƺǿǏ� ǦƺΚǩǿǠ� ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ� ǏǩГ- ljȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠইljȅǿljǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠ�শݾ�઀�ঀࢷࢳॹ�Ȓ�ઃ�ঀࢲࢱࢱষ� predicted higher levels of community participation. EǓǾȅȖΡ�^Ǔǹǟে�ГljƺljΡ A multiple linear regression analysis was conduct- ǓǏ�Ƞȅ�ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓ�ǦȅΛ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ� ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ΛǩȠǦ�ȖǓǾǓǾLjǓȖǩǿǠইljȅǿljǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǿȅȠǩlj- ing memory changes are associated with MSE. Entering all variables explained 13% of the variance in MSE, R2 = .13, Adj. R2 = .09, F(7, 140) = 2.95, p = .007; see Table �ষঀ��ȅǿȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�șǓljȅǿǏ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡࢶ ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷș�শݾ�઀ࢱ�ঀࢵࢳॹ�Ȓ�઀�ঀࢳࢱষॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǠǓǿ- ǏǓȖ�শݾ�઀�েࢱঀࢳࢳॹ�Ȓ�઀�ঀࢲࢱষ�ȒȖǓǏǩljȠǓǏ�ǦǩǠǦǓȖ�ǹǓΚǓǹș�ȅǟ�E^�ঀ Discussion Findings �ȅǿșǩșȠǓǿȠ�ΛǩȠǦ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�E^�� was positively associated with community participa- Ƞǩȅǿঀ�eǦǩș�ЙǿǏǩǿǠ�ǾǩǠǦȠ�șȣǠǠǓșȠ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȅǿǓঢ়ș�LjǓǹǩǓǟș�ƺLjȅȣȠ� ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ljƺǿ�ǩǿМȣǓǿljǓ�ΛǦǓȠǦǓȖ�ȠǦǓΡ�ljǦȅȅșǓ�Ƞȅ�ȒƺȖ- ticipate in community activities or not. For example, if an individual does not think that their memory ability is strong, especially compared to their friends or to oth- ers they might interact with, they might choose to stay home to avoid embarrassment or the stress of attend- ǩǿǠ�ȠǦǓ�ǓΚǓǿȠঀ�/ȅΛǓΚǓȖॹ�ljȅǿȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓ- șǩșॹ�ΛȅȖșǓ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ƺLjǩǹǩȠΡ�ƺǿǏ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�ǏǩГljȣǹ- ty remembering/concentrating also predicted higher levels of community participation. This is surprising, as the literature has proposed that those experiencing ljȅǠǿǩȠǩΚǓ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ƺȖǓ�ǾȅȖǓ�ǹǩǷǓǹΡ�Ƞȅ�ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿljǓ�șȅljǩƺǹ� isolation (DiNapoli et al., 2014; Shankar et al., 2013). � eǦǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡ�ǾǩǠǦȠ� șȣǠǠǓșȠ� that individuals who experience greater cognitive ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ǾǩǠǦȠ� ȠǓǿǏ� Ƞȅ� șǓǓǷ� ȅȣȠ� ƺǹȠǓȖǿƺȠǩΚǓॹ� ȒǹǓƺșȣȖ able activities or activities that might enhance their social support, which is contrary to the idea that this ǩǿljȖǓƺșǓǏ� ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ΛȅȣǹǏ� ǹǓƺǏ� ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣƺǹș� Ƞȅ� șȠƺΡ� ƺȠ� ǦȅǾǓ�ǏȣǓ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ǓΠȠȖƺ�ǓАȅȖȠ�ǩȠ�ȠƺǷǓș�Ƞȅ�ǹǓƺΚǓ�ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǦȅǾǓঀ� Further, an explanation might be found in Greenglass et al. (2006), which examined how proactive cop- ing — a form of coping in which an individual views stressors as challenges rather than threats — was relat- ed to greater functional independence and lower de- pression in older adults. It is possible that older adults ΛǩȠǦ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ΚǩǓΛ�ljȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ƺljȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș�ƺș�ljǦƺǹǹǓǿǠ- es, motivating them to participate in order to achieve and maintain independence (Greenglass et al., 2006) � vǩȠǦ� ȖǓǠƺȖǏ� Ƞȅ� E^�ॹ� ƺ� șȣȖȒȖǩșǩǿǠ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠ� ȠǦƺȠ� contradicted the second hypothesis was that greater ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ�ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷș�Λƺș�ǟȅȣǿǏ�Ƞȅ�ȒȖǓ- dict higher levels of MSE. It is possible that this study’s results were an example of the role that social desir- ability can play in MSE and memory performance, as explored by Sawin (2021). Social desirability refers to one’s desire to minimize negative and enhance posi- tive attributes of themselves, which can result in un- derreporting negative behaviors while overreporting positive behaviors (Latkin et al., 2017; Sawin, 2021). In these cases, as potentially suggested by the present study’s data, one might overreport their memory abil- ǩȠΡ�ǩǿ�ƺǿ�ǓАȅȖȠ�Ƞȅ�ljȅǿljǓƺǹ�ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿljǓ�ȅǟ�ǏǩГljȣǹȠΡ� completing self-care tasks. This would also provide an explanation as to why working memory ability was negatively related to community participation, ƺș� ǩȠ� ǩș�ȒȅșșǩLjǹǓ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ƺLjǩǹǩȠΡ� ǩș�ǿȅȠ�ƺș� ǩǿМȣǓǿ- tial as social desirability is. If correct, this idea would contrast with the literature that examines the threat of stereotypes associated with aging (e.g., older adults are not as cognitively able strictly due to their age), on an individual’s abilities on memory tasks, such that ability is reduced due to buy-in of these stereotypes (Chasteen et al., 2005; Stein et al., 2002). If older adults instead choose to overreport their memory ƺLjǩǹǩȠΡॹ�ƺȠȠǓǾȒȠǩǿǠ�Ƞȅ�ƺȒȒǓƺȖ�LjǓȠȠǓȖ�ȅА�ȠǦƺǿ�ȠǦǓΡ�ƺȖǓॹ� then this social desirability factor might have a great- ǓȖ�ǓАǓljȠ�ȠǦƺǿ�șȠǓȖǓȅȠΡȒǓș�ƺșșȅljǩƺȠǓǏ�ΛǩȠǦ�ƺǠǓ�ȅȖ�ǏǩГ- culty completing self-care tasks could have on ability.. 'ȣȖȠǦǓȖॹ�ȅȣȖ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ǩǹǹȣșȠȖƺȠǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾǓǿ�ǦƺǏ�ǦǩǠǦ- er MSE compared to women. This was similar to the ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȅǟ�'ƺǹǹƺǿ�ƺǿǏ�KȒșȠƺǏ�শࢷࢲࢱࢳষ�ƺǿǏ�/ȣƺǿǠ�শࢳࢲࢱࢳষॹ� ΛǦǩljǦ�ȅLjșǓȖΚǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾƺǹǓș�ȖǓȒȅȖȠǓǏ�ǦǩǠǦǓȖ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ� on math tasks. It is possible that the working memory 66 MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT task was considered by participants to be a math task because it involved numbers, which could help explain ȠǦǓ� ǠǓǿǏǓȖ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿljǓș� ȖǓΚǓƺǹǓǏ� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ� ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡঀ � 'ǩǿƺǹǹΡॹ�ǠǩΚǓǿ�ȒƺșȠ�ȖǓșǓƺȖljǦ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȠǦƺȠ�E^��Λƺș� positively related to working memory, it was surprising that MSE was not positively related to working memory. It is possible that the executive functioning component of working memory caused the relationship between MSE and memory that was observed in past research to not be true of working memory. It is also possible that the present study’s limitations, which are discussed in detail below, led to a positive relationship between MSE and working memory remaining undetected. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research The present study was subject to three primary lim- itations: 1) a lack of diversity in the sample, 2) recruit- ing participants via MTurk, 3) participants were asked to self-report their levels of community participation. � ^ȒǓƺǷǩǿǠ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǹǩǾǩȠƺȠǩȅǿॹ�ǾȅșȠ�ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺǿȠș� ǩǏǓǿȠǩЙǓǏ� ƺș� ǟǓǾƺǹǓ� শࢷࢷঀࢹઔষॹ��ƺȣljƺșǩƺǿ� শࢶࢷঀࢷઔষॹ� ƺǿǏ� achieved higher than a high school education (91.5%). This lack of variation could decrease the external va- ǹǩǏǩȠΡ�ȅǟ�ȠǦǩș�șȠȣǏΡঢ়ș�ЙǿǏǩǿǠșঀ�'ȣȠȣȖǓ�ȖǓșǓƺȖljǦ�șǦȅȣǹǏ� retest these hypotheses with a larger and more diverse sample to increase the ability to generalize results. Second, all participants were recruited using MTurk, which is an online survey platform created by Amazon. This could have limited the external validity ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠșॹ� ƺș� ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺȠǩǿǠ� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ� ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡ� would have required technical skills to get on MTurk, as well as awareness about MTurk’s monetary incen- tives in exchange for participation in research studies. eǦǩș�ljȅȣǹǏ�ȒƺȖȠǩljȣǹƺȖǹΡ�ƺАǓljȠ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȅȒȣǹƺȠǩȅǿ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǩș�LjǓ- ing examined in this study, as older adults are less likely to possess technological skills and be aware of MTurk, compared to younger populations. It is possible that the older adults who participated in this study possess characteristics that might serve as a latent, confound- ǩǿǠ�ΚƺȖǩƺLjǹǓ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾǩǠǦȠ�ǦƺΚǓ�ƺАǓljȠǓǏ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡঢ়ș� ЙǿǏǩǿǠșॹ� ƺǹȠǦȅȣǠǦ� ȠǦǓȖǓ� ǩș� ǓΚǩǏǓǿljǓॹ� ȣșǩǿǠ� ȠǦǓ� șƺǾǓ� method and population sample as the present study, to suggest that the memory performance of an MTurk șƺǾȒǹǓ�ȅǟ�ȅǹǏǓȖ�ƺǏȣǹȠș�ǏȅǓș�ǿȅȠ�ǏǩАǓȖ�ǟȖȅǾ�ƺ�ǿȅȖǾƺ- tive, traditional sample of older adults (Mashinchi et al., 2021). Future research should use one sample to conduct data collection through two methods: 1) via MTurk data collection, and 2) via in-person data col- ǹǓljȠǩȅǿॹ� ƺǿǏ� ȠǦǓǿ�ljȅǾȒƺȖǓ� ȠǦǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș� Ƞȅ�ǏǓȠǓȖǾǩǿǓ� ǩǟ� ȠǦǓȖǓ� ƺȖǓ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿljǓș� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ� ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿljǓș� ȅǟ� ȒƺȖȠǩljǩ- ȒƺǿȠș�ǏȣǓ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ǏǩАǓȖǓǿljǓ�ǩǿ�ǏƺȠƺ�ljȅǹǹǓljȠǩȅǿ�ǾǓȠǦȅǏঀ � 'ȣȖȠǦǓȖॹ� ȠǦǓ� ƺǠǓ� ЙǹȠǓȖș� ȠǦƺȠ� EeȣȖǷ� ƺǹǹȅΛș� ƺȖǓ� ȒȖǓșǓȠ� ƺǿǏ� ȣǿǾȅǏǩЙƺLjǹǓঀ� 'ǩǟȠΡেЙΚǓ� ƺǿǏ� ȅǹǏǓȖ� ǩș� ȠǦǓ� oldest age grouping that can be selected. This means that those 55-64 years old were included in the study. There is evidence that this age range is when subjec- tive memory complaints begin (Jenkins et al., 2019), which would result in a low reported MSE, and thus would be an important age sample to include in this study. Despite this evidence, the 55-64 age grouping is not often subject to concerns about cognitive decline (Aartsen et al., 2002). It is possible that this minimum age could have negatively skewed the results from the present study and might serve as an explanation as to why a positive relationship between MSE and working memory was not found. Similarly, the median age of participants was 65 years old, which is on the younger end of the age range, and might have led to an inabili- ty to detect a relationship between MSE and working memory. Future research should seek to recruit older ȒƺȖȠǩljǩȒƺǿȠș�ƺǿǏ�ljȅǾȒƺȖǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡ� in order to determine if there is a point at which MSE, working memory ability, or community participation changes (e.g., comparing 65-year-old scores to 85-year- old scores). Given that the human population is get- ting older (Crimmins, 2015; Semenova & Stadtlander, 2016), this distinction will be important to determine. Additionally, it is important to note that 23 (6.5%) participants were excluded because their re- ported age was younger than 55. Although the MTurk ЙǹȠǓȖ�Λƺș�ȣșǓǏ�Ƞȅ�ȖǓljȖȣǩȠ�ȅǿǹΡ�ȠǦȅșǓࢶࢶ��ƺǿǏ�ȅǹǏǓȖॹ�ǩȠ�ǩș� possible that some participants have found ways to LjΡȒƺșș� ȠǦǓ�ЙǹȠǓȖ� ǩǿ�ȅȖǏǓȖ� Ƞȅ� ljȅǾȒǹǓȠǓ� ȠƺșǷș� ǟȅȖ�Ǿȅǿ- etary incentives. Given these issues, the authors of the present study echo the recommendation made by Chmielewski and Kucker (2019) to screen data for completion, validity, and reliability prior to con- ducting analyses. Researchers using MTurk might need to plan to recruit more participants that an a pri- ori power analysis suggests are needed for the study. Third, the community participation data for this study was collected using a self-report measure. This option could allow for participants to errone- ously recall how often they have engaged in commu- nity activities, either by over or underestimating. Fu- ture research should include measures beyond self-re 67 MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION port, such as asking participants to receive a stamp or initial on a card every time they participate in a community event. It is also possible that variables not accounted for in the present study, such as the geographic location and the socioeconomic status of both individuals and the community, might be related to community participation. Future research should seek to include these variables in their explorations. In addition to future research suggestions to address limitations, future research should also fur- ther examine how proactive coping might have ex- plained the present study’s results and determine ΛǦǓȠǦǓȖ� ȅǹǏǓȖ� ƺǏȣǹȠș� ΛǩȠǦ� ǏǩГljȣǹȠǩǓș� ΚǩǓΛ� ljȅǾǾȣ- nity activities as motivated challenges to secure inde- pendence, as suggested by Greenglass et al. (2006). Conclusion � �ƺșǓǏ�ȅǿ�ȠǦǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȅǟ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡॹ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ� MSE is positively related to participation in communi- ȠΡ�ƺljȠǩΚǩȠǩǓșঀ�eǦǩș�șȠȣǏΡ�șǓȖΚǓș�ƺș�ƺ�ЙȖșȠ�șȠǓȒ�Ƞȅ�ȣǿǏǓȖ- standing how one’s beliefs in their memory can be re- lated to their decision of engaging in their community. References Aartsen, M. J., Smits, C. H. M., van Tilburg, T., Knipscheer, K. C. P. M., & Deeg, D. J. H. (2002). Activity in older adults: Cause or consequence of cognitive functioning? A longitudinal study on everyday activities and cognitive performance in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Se- ries B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(2), P153–P162. https://doi.org/10.1093/geron- b/57.2.P153 Aben, B., Stapert, S., & Blokland, A. (2012). About the distinction between working memory and short-term memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00301 Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive pro- ljǓșșǓș� ȠǦȖȅȣǠǦ� ȒǓȖljǓǩΚǓǏ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡঀ� Develop- mental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735. https://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.729 Bandura, A. (1997). ^DzȘǾणDzϭǨǙǨ࣒ͧ� eȅDz� DzͦDzȵǨȈȸDz� ȤǾ� ǨȤȞ- trol. W.H. Freeman. Beaudoin, M., & Desrichard, O. (2011). Are memory șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ƺǿǏ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ȒǓȖǟȅȖǾƺǿljǓ�ȖǓǹƺȠǓǏঁ��� meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 211– 241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022106 Berry, J. M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989). [ǓǹǩƺLjǩǹǩȠΡ� ƺǿǏ� ΚƺǹǩǏǩȠΡ� ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ�EǓǾȅȖΡ� ^Ǔǹǟে�Г- cacy Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.25.5.701 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2015). Census questions on disability endorsed by the Washington Group. Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/washington_group/WG_Short_Measure_ on_Disability.pdf Chasteen, A. L., Bhattacharyya, S., Horhota, M., Tam, R., & Hasher, L. (2005). How feelings ȅǟ� șȠǓȖǓȅȠΡȒǓ� ȠǦȖǓƺȠ� ǩǿМȣǓǿljǓ� ȅǹǏǓȖ� ƺǏȣǹȠșঢ়� memory performance. Experimental Ag- ing Research, 31(3), 235–260. https://doi. org/10.1080/03610730590948177 Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the im- pact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi. org/10.1177/1948550619875149 �ȅΛƺǿॹ�Fঀ� শࢹࢱࢱࢳষঀ��ǦƺȒȠǓȖࢱࢳ�ॸ�vǦƺȠ� ƺȖǓ� ȠǦǓ�ǏǩАǓȖ- ences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? In Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 169, pp. 323–338). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0079-6123(07)00020-9 Crimmins, E. M. (2015). Lifespan and healthspan: Past, present, and promise. The Gerontologist, 55(6), 901–911. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/ gnv130 Denis, D. J. (2016). Applied univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics. Wiley. Desrichard, O., & Köpetz, C. (2005). A threat in the ǓǹǏǓȖॸ� eǦǓ� ǩǾȒƺljȠ� ȅǟ� ȠƺșǷেǩǿșȠȖȣljȠǩȅǿșॹ� șǓǹǟেǓГ- cacy and performance expectations on memory performance in the elderly. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(4), 537–552. https://doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.249 DiNapoli, E. A., Wu, B., & Scogin, F. (2014). Social isolation and cognitive function in Appalachian older adults. Research on Aging, 36(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027512470704 'ƺǹǹƺǿॹ�@ঀॹ�૭�KȒșȠƺǏॹ�@ঀ� শࢷࢲࢱࢳষঀ�^ȠȣǏǓǿȠ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ� and gender-personality interactions. Internation- al Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), p32. https:// doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p32 Fratiglioni, L., Paillard-Borg, S., & Winblad, B. (2004). An active and socially integrated lifestyle in late life 68 MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT might protect against dementia. The Lancet Neurology, 3(6), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474- 4422(04)00767-7 Fritsch, T., Smyth, K. A., Debanne, S. M., Petot, G. J., & Friedland, R. P. (2005). Participation in novelty-seeking leisure activities and Alzhei- mer’s disease. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 18(3), 134–141. https://doi. org/10.1177/0891988705277537 Greenglass, E., Fiksenbaum, L., & Eaton, J. (2006). The relationship between coping, social support, functional disability and depression in the elderly. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 19(1), 15–31. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14659890500436430 Hertzog, C., Dixon, R. A., Schulenberg, J. E., & Hultsch, �ঀ� 'ঀ� শࢸࢹࢺࢲষঀ� Kǿ� ȠǦǓ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿȠǩƺȠǩȅǿ� ȅǟ� ǾǓǾȅ- ry beliefs from memory knowledge: The factor structure of the metamemory in adulthood scale. Experimental Aging Research, 13(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610738708259308 /ȅАǾƺǿॹ��ঀॹ�૭�^ljǦȖƺΛॹ�(ঀ�শࢺࢱࢱࢳষঀ�eǦǓ�ǩǿМȣǓǿljǓ�ȅǟ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ� ƺǿǏ� ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ljƺȒƺljǩȠΡ� ȅǿ� ȒȖȅLjǹǓǾেșȅǹΚǩǿǠ� ǓГljǩǓǿljΡঀ� Learning and Indi- ͠ȈǮɂǙȘ� �ȈωDzȵDzȞǨDzȸ࣓� �࣓ओࠌऒࠔࠌ 91–100. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.001 /ȣƺǿǠॹ� �ঀ� শࢴࢲࢱࢳষঀ� (ǓǿǏǓȖ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿljǓș� ǩǿ� ƺljƺǏǓǾǩlj� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡॸ���ǾǓȠƺেƺǿƺǹΡșǩșঀ�European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1–35. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y Insel, K., Morrow, D., Brewer, B., & Figueredo, A. (2006). Executive function, working memory, and medication adherence among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(2), P102–P107. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.2.P102 Lalitha, K. & Aswartha Reddy, A. (2021). Everyday ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ� ƺǿǏ� șǓǹǟেȖǓȒȅȖȠǓǏ� ǦǓƺǹȠǦ� among elderly persons. Indian Journal of Geron- tology, 35(3), 360–374. Latkin, C. A., Edwards, C., Davey-Rothwell, M. A., & Tobin, K. E. (2017). The relationship between social desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland. Addictive Behaviors, 73, 133–136. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.005 Mars, G. M. J., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Post, M. W. M., Proot, I. M., Mesters, I., & van Eijk, J. T. M. (2009). The Maastricht social participation pro- ЙǹǓॸ� �ǓΚǓǹȅȒǾǓǿȠ� ƺǿǏ� ljǹǩǿǩǾǓȠȖǩlj� ȒȖȅȒǓȖȠǩǓș� ǩǿ� older adults with a chronic physical illness. Quali- ty of Life Research, 18(9), 1207–1218. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11136-009-9537-4 Mashinchi, G. M., Cotter, K. A., & Williams, G. A. (2021). Creating an online digit span using Qual- trics: Ingenuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal University of Montana Report: Unpub- lished. Mashinchi, G. M. (2022). An examination of the re- ǹƺȠǩȅǿ�LjǓȠΛǓǓǿ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ƺǿǏ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� memory within the cognitive reserve framework. University of Montana: Graduate Student The- ses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. https:// scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11904/ McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: Evidence for a com- mon executive attention construct. Neuropsychol- ogy, 24(2), 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0017619 Meyer, M. L., Spunt, R. P., Berkman, E. T., Taylor, S. E., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Evidence for social working memory from a parametric func- tional MRI study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 1883–1888. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121077109 Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active mainte- nance and executive control (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139174909 Nieboer, A. P., Hajema, K., & Cramm, J. M. (2020). Relationships of self-management abilities to loneliness among older people: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), 184. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12877-020-01584-x Pearman, A., & Trujillo, A. (2013). Changes in mem- ory prediction accuracy: Age and performance ǓАǓljȠșঀ�Educational Gerontology, 39(7), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2012.701132 Sawin, K. G. (2021). Painting a pretty picture: the role ȅǟ�șȅljǩƺǹ�ǏǓșǩȖƺLjǩǹǩȠΡ�ǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ȅǟ� young and older adults. Butler Journal of Under- graduate Research, 7, 272–286. Scarmeas, N., Levy, G., Tang, M.-X., Manly, J., & Ste- 69 MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION � � � Ȗǿॹ�|ঀ� শࢲࢱࢱࢳষঀ� 2ǿМȣǓǿljǓ�ȅǟ� ǹǓǩșȣȖǓ� ƺljȠǩΚǩȠΡ�ȅǿ� ȠǦǓ� incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology, 57(12), 2236–2242. https://doi.org/10.1212/ WNL.57.12.2236 Semenova, V., & Stadtlander, L. (2016). Death anxiety, depression, and coping in family caregivers. Jour- nal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5590/JSBHS.2016.10.1.05 Shankar, A., Hamer, M., McMunn, A., & Steptoe, A. (2013). Social isolation and loneliness: relation- ships with cognitive function during 4 years of follow-up in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Psychosomatic Medicine, 75(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e31827f09cd Sobral, M., & Paúl, C. (2013). Education, leisure activ- ities and cognitive and functional ability of Alzhei- mer’s disease patients: A follow-up study. Demen- tia & Neuropsychologia, 7(2), 181–189. https:// doi.org/10.1590/S1980-57642013DN70200008 Stein, R., Blanchard-Fields, F., & Hertzog, C. (2002). eǦǓ� ǓАǓljȠș� ȅǟ� ƺǠǓেșȠǓȖǓȅȠΡȒǓ� ȒȖǩǾǩǿǠ� ȅǿ� ȠǦǓ� memory performance of older adults. Experimen- tal Aging Research, 28(2), 169–181. https://doi. org/10.1080/03610730252800184 Turvey, C. L., Schultz, S., Arndt, S., Wallace, R. B., & Herzog, R. (2000). Memory complaint in a com- munity sample aged 70 and older. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(11), 1435–1441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000. tb02634.x Vallet, F., Agrigoroaei, S., Beaudoin, M., Fournet, N., Paignon, A., Roulin, J.-L., & Desrichard, O. (2015). Older adults’ beliefs about forgetting and ƺǠǩǿǠ�ȒȖǓǏǩljȠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ�ƺLjȅΚǓ�ƺǿǏ�LjǓ- yond actual memory performance and mental health. Revue Internationale de Psychologie So- ciale, 28(4), 57–79. Vellone, E., Pancani, L., Greco, A., Steca, P., & Riegel, �ঀ� শࢷࢲࢱࢳষঀ�^ǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ�ljȅǿЙǏǓǿljǓ�ǾƺΡ�LjǓ�ǾȅȖǓ� ǩǾ- ȒȅȖȠƺǿȠ� ȠǦƺǿ� ljȅǠǿǩȠǩȅǿ� Ƞȅ� ǩǿМȣǓǿljǓ� șǓǹǟেljƺȖǓ� LjǓ- haviors in adults with heart failure: Testing a me- diation model. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 60, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijnurstu.2016.04.016 Verghese, J., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M. J., Hall, C. B., Derby, C. A., Kuslansky, G., Ambrose, A. F., Sli- winski, M., & Buschke, H. (2003). Leisure activ- ities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. New England Journal of Medicine, 348(25), 2508– 2516. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022252 Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV technical and interpre- tive manual. Pearson/PsychCorp. West, R. L., Welch, D. C., & Knabb, P. D. (2002). (ǓǿǏǓȖ� ƺǿǏ� ƺǠǩǿǠॸ� ^ȒƺȠǩƺǹ� șǓǹǟেǓГljƺljΡ� ƺǿǏ� ǹȅ- cation recall. Basic and Applied Social Psy- chology, 24(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15324834BASP2401_7 70 MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 71 MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 72 MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 73 MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 74 MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT