Research on aging - abrupt vs. transitional retirement

**All original papers can be found in our group drive folder (will be in the folder titled Aging Research)

DE VAUS, D., WELLS, Y., KENDIG, H., & QUINE, S. (2007). Does gradual retirement have better outcomes than abrupt retirement? Results from an Australian panel study. Ageing & Society, 27(05), 667-682. doi: doi:10.1017/S0144686X07006228

In this paper, De Vaus et al. focus on how people exit the workforce - whether transitioning into retirement abruptly or gradually impacts on retirement wellbeing. Their study was conducted from on a panel of Australian participants (n=601) through a time period of 1-3 years. Analyses was based on a subset of 358 participants from the original 601. Their study found that for many outcomes there was no significant difference between participants who retired gradually and those who retired abruptly. However those who retired abruptly were more likely to rate their health as having deteriorated and more likely to report better adjustment to retirement. Control over retirement decisions emerged as a more important factor in determining retirement wellbeing than whether the transition was gradual or abrupt. "Retiring gradually allows time for people to make changes to their lifestyle, but having control over the timing and manner of leaving work had a greater positive impact on psychological and social wellbeing, and this persisted three years after retirement"

Additional points that can be incorporated into our background study for the research paper (my own comments are italicised):

• Their literature review notes that while partial retirement (i.e. gradually transitioning) is often advocated as an alternative to abrupt retirement, 'there is little evidence to suggest that it leads to better outcomes' (see p.670 for a list of studies)
• Other factors impact more on positive retirement: health (see: Kim & Feldman 2000; Parnes & Sommers 1994; Singh & Verma 2003); degree of choice or control - 'workers who control the manner and timing of their retirement do much better in retirement' (see: Isaksson & Johansson 2000; van Solinge & Henkens 2005).
• The results of this paper are quite similar to Ibtehal's - i.e. degree of choice or control of how a person exits the workforce remains one of the more central factors in positive retirement outcomes.
• However, also note that abrupt retirement can also be caused by an event seen as being out of one's control (e.g. retrenchment). Therefore the issues of control and the nature of exiting the workplace are not clear cut boundaries.

Also provide some background information on retirement patterns in Australia and changes over time that can be useful to contextualise the design and justification of our concept.

• Typical retirement pattern after WWII was to work full-time and retire from the workforce at around 65, receiving either state or private pensions.
• Based on literature (one source) suggest that this pattern has changed slightly in more recent decades - mode and timing of exiting the workforce have become more varied.
• Reasons for exiting at a younger age: retrenchment and restructuring, higher unemployment, increased availability of veterans and disability pensions.
• Compulsory retirement at 65 has been abolished.
• Late middle-aged women increasing their workforce participation