Late Life in the Living Room: Room Décor, Functional Limitations, and Personality

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Environmental gerontology and environmental psychology theories address adaptations of living space for disability and individual preferences. This study combines these perspectives to examine how room décor (i.e., furnishings, design, decoration) corresponds with functional limitations and personality in late life.

Research Design and Methods

Older adults aged 65 and older (N = 286) completed interviews regarding living arrangements, functional limitations, personality, and depressive symptoms. Participants provided 3–4 photographs of the room where they spend the most time. Raters coded photographs for physical adaptations for functional limitations and 19 features of décor (e.g., crowding, color), fitting 3 categories: (a) newness, (b) comfort, and (c) cheerfulness. We estimated linear regression models to examine how functional limitations or personality are associated with room décor, and whether living arrangement moderates these links. We also assessed whether room décor moderates functional limitations or personality predicting depressive symptoms.

Results

Functional limitations were associated with greater clutter and less brightness. Extraversion was associated with newness and cheerfulness (but not comfort), and conscientiousness with newness and comfort (but not cheerfulness). Openness was associated with more newness and cheerfulness for those who live alone. Moderation models revealed functional limitations were associated with fewer depressive symptoms if the room was more cluttered. Conscientiousness was negatively associated with depressive symptoms when the room was higher on newness or comfort.

Discussion and Implications

Findings generally supported environmental psychology and environmental gerontology perspectives and suggest “goodness of fit” between functional abilities, personal desires, and room characteristics may contribute to benefits of aging in place.

Aging in place, Environmental gerontology, Home, Interior design, Residence

In late life, as individuals retire, limit daily activities, incur functional limitations, or prefer periods of solitude, they spend increasing time at home (Cagney et al., 2013). Older adults particularly may spend time in areas of the home deemed “personal living spaces” due to their high use, access to nonresidents, or meaning (e.g., living rooms, den; Gosling et al., 2005a; Graham et al., 2015). Environmental psychologists suggest these spaces serve as an expression of identity and are associated with differences in personality in young adulthood (Gosling et al., 2002). That is, overall décor is comprised of features of the room (e.g., furnishings, design, color, style, light, and visible items) that may collectively generate overall impressions of the room for people who live in or view that space (see Supplementary Glossary for definition of personal living space, décor, and other terminology in this article).

Theories of environmental gerontology extend this premise to incorporate person–environment fit. In late life, living spaces may be adjusted to align with functional abilities. Older adults may proactively alter their environments to maintain independent living (Lawton, 1989; Wahl et al., 2012; Welti et al., 2020). A robust literature has examined this issue with regard to caregiving, disability, and frail older adults (Gitlin, 2003), and randomized control trials reveal that adaptations to the home slow the disablement process (Wahl et al., 2009).

Environmental gerontology and environmental psychology draw on interactionist theories that suggest individuals tailor their social world (e.g., friendships, mates) to reflect their general predispositions, attitudes, and motivations to provoke predictable reactions from others (Buss, 1987). Likewise, Gosling et al. (2002) have argued that individuals similarly craft their physical environments to manifest their traits. As such, living spaces may vary with regard to colors, patterns, lighting, cleanliness, novelty, and other features in ways that reflect an individual’s personality and needs. Individual characteristics (functional limitations, personality) evident in features of personal living space may generate a “goodness of fit” when these spaces fit individual preferences or needs, and individuals may report better psychological health.

Furthermore, we considered factors that may limit the ability to adapt living space to one’s preferences. Room size constrains furnishing and spaciousness of the room. Individuals who have more money may decorate to manifest their personality more. Much research on living spaces has focused on costly interior design, dorm rooms, or office spaces (Gosling et al., 2005b). Separate literature addresses low-income housing and crowding (Blake et al., 2007; Evans et al., 2002). This study focused on a broader socioeconomic range of community-dwelling older adults, and we controlled for socioeconomic status in the models.

Functional Limitations and Living Situation

Environmental gerontology has focused on person–environment fit with regard to disability in late life (Lawton, 1985). The Disablement Process Model suggests that physical impairments lead to functional limitations that contribute to disabilities in managing the household and living independently (Fauth et al., 2007; see Supplementary Glossary for definitions of terms). Modifications to the home are often necessary if older adults who experience physical disabilities wish to age in place (Oswald & Wahl, 2005).

In prior studies relying on smaller samples, interviewers coded older adults’ homes for features associated with functional limitations using well-developed coding schemes such as the Home Environmental Assessment Protocol (Gitlin et al., 2002). However, those assessments focused on older adults who cannot perform tasks of daily life (e.g., bathing), rather than those with mild functional limitations (e.g., ability to climb stairs). We know very little about living spaces prior to the onset of disability that limits autonomy, and whether individuals adjust their living space with the onset of functional limitations.

Functional limitations may be associated with home décor. Literature is mixed with regard to whether living spaces are more kept up when older adults experience physical problems. Some older adults may minimize clutter and maximize brightness to lessen the risk of tripping (Gitlin et al., 2002). However, as older adults experience physical declines, they may be less able to conduct regular maintenance, repairs, or cleaning. In qualitative research, family members describe the need for the older adult to reduce the accumulation of possessions (Smith & Ekerdt, 2011), and these complaints may reflect functional limitations as well as attachment to those items. Finally, adaptations (e.g., raised chairs, sidebars) and personal assistive devices (e.g., walkers, canes) may be evident to facilitate independence (Lofqvist et al., 2007).

Likewise, residential context also may contribute to room décor. Prior studies of personal living spaces have focused on single-user spaces (e.g., dorm room, office), but when individuals share a living space, the décor of that space may be less reflective of one individual’s preferences or functional needs. We asked whether residential status (alone vs. with others) moderates links between individual differences and room décor.

Individual Differences in Personal Living Space

The home is a source of thought, resources, energy, and the place where many older adults spend the majority of their time (Graham et al., 2015). Theorists have conceptualized home as an expression of identity (Oswald & Wahl, 2005). As such, individuals may decorate living spaces in ways that manifest their preferences (Burroughs et al., 1991; Gosling et al., 2005b; Graham et al., 2015). Researchers have linked décor in younger adults’ living spaces to self-reported personality (Burrough et al., 1991; Gosling et al., 2002), and the same may be true for older adults.

Of the Big Five personality traits, four have been related to room décor: extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Gosling et al. (2002) argued that extraversion is associated with spaces that invite social contact. Openness may be evident in a novel or eclectic décor. Conscientiousness is associated with cleanliness, neatness, and keeping things up-to-date and tidy (Jackson et al., 2010). Finally, the literature suggests individuals who score high on agreeableness are less materialistic than those who score lower on agreeableness (Matz & Gladstone, 2020; Watson, 2014); this may extend to sparsely decorated living spaces. Neuroticism has not been linked to room décor, perhaps because this trait suggests instability of mood, and many features of room décor (e.g., furnishings, colors, items) are stable.

Personal Living Spaces and Psychological Well-Being

Décor of personal living spaces also may be associated with individual well-being. Studies of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found associations between features of home residences and life satisfaction (Balestra & Sultan, 2013). Shortage of space, poor lighting, and poor housing quality also have been linked to decreased well-being in many samples (e.g., psychiatric patients, low-income older adults; Evans, 2003; Evans et al., 2002). Qualitative research has described the cramped feeling of many older adults’ living spaces, which may contribute to dissatisfaction for the individual or family (Ranada & Hagberg, 2014). In one study, younger women who described their homes as cluttered showed diurnal cortisol patterns associated with depression and stress (Saxbe & Repetti, 2010). Of course, these associations may be bidirectional; individuals who have more depressive symptoms may be less likely to clean or keep up with maintenance.

We considered moderating effects of personality and functional limitations on well-being. A goodness-of-fit model suggests that the match between personality and décor or between functional limitations and adaptations may be associated with well-being. For example, individuals who score higher on extraversion who have more welcoming space may fare better on well-being than older adults who do not have such a match between personality and décor. Likewise, individuals who have functional limitations but who live in well-lit, uncluttered rooms with adaptations may report better well-being than older adults with functional limitations whose rooms lack these features.

The Current Study and Other Factors Associated With Living Spaces

We obtained photographs of older adults’ living spaces to understand factors associated with that space (e.g., self-reported personality, functional ability, residential status, depressive symptoms). Prior studies have found that most older adults report satisfaction with their housing, but photographs of the space allow more objective comparisons of spaces (Iwarsson et al., 2007). Research has established the reliability of raters’ coding of personal space (Gosling, 2002).

We adjusted for other factors associated with room décor and mood. Racial differences are evident in larger environments (e.g., neighborhoods, geographic region; Cagney et al., 2005; Yao & Robert, 2008) and may be evident in living spaces. Women may exert greater control over the home environment than do men (Young, 2005). Mood typically becomes more positive with age (Charles & Carstensen, 2010).

In summary, we predicted that higher extraversion would be associated with décor that facilitates social encounters (i.e., comfort), more openness associated with more unique and innovative décor, more conscientious with less clutter and up-to-date personal spaces, and agreeableness with sparser décor. We did not make predictions regarding neuroticism, but examined it here. We expected functional limitations to be associated with less clutter, brighter lighting, and evidence of adaptations to facilitate aging in place. We anticipated all associations would be stronger for older adults who live alone. Finally, we examined a goodness-of-fit model predicting that a match between room décor and functional limitations and personality would be associated with fewer depressive symptoms.

Method

Adults older than the age of 65 in the Austin metropolitan area participated in the Daily Experiences and Well-being Study. The sample was recruited in 2016 via listed phone numbers and random digital dialing using city area codes (the vast majority of older adults still used landlines in 2016; Kennedy et al., 2016). The sample was racially and ethnically diverse and reflected a wide range of socioeconomic status (Table 1). The initial response rate was 79.5% of eligible participants.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Participants and Rooms (N = 286)

Demographic and room characteristics	Mean	SD	Range	Proportion
Participant characteristics
Age	73.86	6.49	65–89
Functional limitationsa	23.56	27.44	0–100
Depressive symptomsb	16.36	4.64	11–33
Personality
Extraversionc	3.67	0.81	1.00–5.00
Conscientiousnessd	4.03	0.57	2.20–5.00
Agreeablenesse	3.46	0.47	1.50–4.00
Opennessf	3.07	0.49	1.43–4.00
Neuroticismg	2.40	0.66	1.00–4.25
Female				0.55
Racial/ethnic minorityh				0.31
Education
High school or less				0.15
Some college				0.29
College graduate or above				0.57
Married/cohabiting				0.58
Room characteristics
Room sizei	3.05	1.05	1.00–5.00
Factor 1 (newness)j	3.09	0.82	1.14–5.00
Factor 2 (comfort)k	3.24	0.88	1.00–4.63
Factor 3 (cheerfulness)l	2.96	0.90	1.25–5.00
Uncluttered/clutteredm	2.71	1.20	1.00–5.00
Dim/bright lightingn	3.34	1.01	1.00–5.00
Possible hoardingo				0.12

^a0 (no functional limitations) to 100 (substantial functional limitations).

^bSum of 11 items (e.g., poor appetite, felt depressed, restless).

^cMean of five items (outgoing, friendly, lively, active, talkative).

^dMean of five items (organized, responsible, hardworking, careless, and thorough).

^eMean of five items (helpful, warm, softhearted, sympathetic, caring).

^fMean of six items (creative, intelligent, imaginative, broad-minded, sophisticated, adventurous).

^gMean of four items (moody, worrying, nervous, calm [reverse-coded]).

^h1 (ethnic or racial minorities) and 0 (non-Hispanic White).

ⁱ1 (very small) to 5 (very large).

^jMean of seven items (fresh, good condition, clean, expensive, styled, modern, new).

^kMean of eight items (sociable, uncluttered, organized, tidy, empty, roomy, comfortable, inviting).

^lMean of four items (decorated, cheerful, colorful, distinctive).

^m1 (uncluttered) to 5 (cluttered).

ⁿ1 (dim) to 5 (bright).

^oProportion of rooms where coders identified a hoarding or possible hoarding.

Participants completed a baseline interview that lasted 1–2 h in their homes, followed by a 5- to 6-day intensive data collection (not used here). The interview assessed their social network, physical health, and demographic characteristics. During the 5- to 6-day interval, participants completed a self-report instrument personality assessment. Participants received $50 for the baseline interview and $100 for the intensive data collection and self-report survey.

This study included 286 older adults who provided photographs of their living space and completed the baseline and self-report surveys. A larger sample completed the baseline interview (N = 333), but 37 did not provide photographs and 10 did not complete the self-report assessments of personality. The 47 excluded participants were significantly younger (t = 2.00, p = .05) than the analytic sample (n = 286) but did not differ on other characteristics including age, gender, living arrangements, ethnic/racial minority, or education. This sample included a range of education (15% had completed high school or less education), but 57% had a college degree. The population of Austin is highly educated, however, and 45% of adults aged 65 and older have a college degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).

Baseline Interview and Self-Report Questionnaire

Functional limitations

Participants completed the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-36 disability subscale (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). An initial item asked how much pain or physical health interfered with normal activities during the past 4 weeks from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Follow-up questions addressed the extent to which limitations occurred in 10 physical activities (e.g., bending, climbing one flight of stairs, walking one block, lifting or carrying groceries) using 1 (not limited at all), 2 (limits a little), and 3 (limits a lot). The MOS scoring system treats disability ratings on a 100-point scale, reverse-coded as 0 (not limited at all), 50 (limits a little), and 100 (limits a lot). We averaged the 10 items.

Personality

We assessed the Big Five personality traits: extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, and neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 2008; John, 1990) using validated personality measures from the Midlife in the United States (Lachman & Weaver, 1997). The baseline interview assessed extraversion (i.e., outgoing, friendly, lively, active, talkative), conscientiousness (i.e., organized, responsible, hardworking, careless [reverse-coded], and thorough), and neuroticism (moody, a person who worries, nervous, calm [reverse-coded]) self-rated from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). In the self-report questionnaire, participants rated agreeableness (helpful, warm, softhearted, sympathetic, caring) and openness (creative, imaginative, intelligent, imaginative, broad-minded, sophisticated, adventurous). Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.68 for conscientiousness to 0.85 for extraversion, higher than coefficients reported in other studies using these measures with older adults (Wrusz et al., 2016; Zimprich et al., 2012).

Depressive symptoms

Participants completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies—Depression 11-item scale of depressive symptoms over the past week (e.g., appetite was poor, felt sad), rating each item from 1 (rarely or none of the time) to 4 (most or all of the time). We used the average score of the items (Cronbach’s α = 0.78).

Residential status and background characteristics

Participants provided a household roster generating three metrics: (a) number of people in the household, (b) types of social partners coresiding with the older adult (e.g., spouse, grown child), and (c) dichotomous variable 1 (lives alone) or 0 (with others). Patterns of findings were the same across metrics, and for parsimony and consistency with predictions, we present analyses for living alone versus living with others.

As a proxy for socioeconomic status, participants provided educational attainment from 1 (no formal education) to 8 (advanced degree). We recoded education into three groups: high school education or less (reference), some college, and college degree or more. Participants also reported their age, gender, marital status (1 = married/cohabiting, 0 = not married/cohabiting), and ethnicity and race (1 = ethnic or racially underrepresented group, 0 = non-Hispanic White). Self-reported health ranged from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent; Idler & Kasl, 1991).

Ratings of the Home Environment

Photographs and coding

The interviewer asked permission to take three to four photographs of “the room where you spend the most time.” Two independent raters coded the photographs. We included 19 codes derived from the Personal Living Space Cue Inventory (PLSCI; Gosling et al., 2005a); the scales use opposing anchors (e.g., 1 = dated to 5 = updated; 1 = drab to 5 = colorful). We spent 3 months identifying cues to define each of these dimensions (Gosling, 2002) and provide a glossary defining each code. Independent coders rated the photographs, overlapping on 66 participants; intraclass correlations (ICCs) for reliability ranged from 0.63 (empty–full) to 0.94 (disorganized–organized), exceeding norms for similar instruments (Gosling et al., 2005b). Disagreements on codes were resolved via conferencing.

We also coded (a) structural adaptations to the room (e.g., handrails, raised counter) and (b) personal assistive devices (e.g., walker, cane), as well as clutter and brightness of the room. Raters coded room size on a scale from 1 (very small room) to 5 (very large room). Hypotheses focused on the perceptions conveyed by the room, and ICCs between coders for room size indicated adequate reliability (ICC = 0.75).

Analytic strategy

We examined whether functional limitations were associated with adaptations to the room, clutter, or brightness. We conducted principal components analysis of the 19 codes from the PLSCI with Promax rotation to identify underlying factors. We considered whether personality traits are associated with these factors for décor using Ordinary Least Squares regressions.

We asked whether residential status (living alone vs. living with others) moderated associations between functional limitation and décor and between personality traits with décor by examining interaction terms. That is, whether individuals who live alone have stronger associations between individual characteristics and décor. We did not center the functional limitations score in the interaction terms with residential status because zero indicates no functional limitations. We grand-mean centered the scores for personality traits (i.e., subtracted the mean for the entire sample from each participant’s score) to estimate interaction terms.

We addressed associations between room décor and depressive symptoms. In these analyses, the three factors of décor served as predictors and depressive symptoms served as the outcome variable. Finally, we looked at the associations between depressive symptoms with a goodness-of-fit perspective by including moderation effects of functional limitations × room décor and room décor × personality.

Control variables included room size, education, gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Continuous covariates were grand-mean centered. Over half of participants were married, and marital status was too highly correlated with residential status (e.g., living with others) to include in the models (r = −0.65, p < .001) due to multicollinearity.

Results

Distributions and Associations Between Codes

Principal component analysis of the 19 codes from the PLSCI with Promax rotation identified three factors that explained 65.52% of the variance. We applied labels to each factor attempting to incorporate a broader ambiance the codes collectively might convey: Factor 1 (Newness; α = 0.90): fresh, good condition, clean, expensive, styled, new, modern; Factor 2 (Comfort; α = 0.92): sociable, uncluttered, organized, tidy, empty, roomy, comfortable, inviting; Factor 3 (Cheerfulness; α = 0.82): decorated, cheerful, colorful, distinctive (Table 1). We examined correlations between factors: Factor 1 and Factor 2, r = 0.73, p < .001; Factor 1 and Factor 3, r = 0.61, p < .001; Factor 2 and Factor 3; r = 0.39, p < .001.

The individual codes that comprised the factors ranged from 1 to 5 (e.g., dim to bright, dull to colorful, inexpensive to expensive, modern to classic). The highest score on the individual codes was cleanliness (M = 3.87, SD = 0.94); rooms were less likely to be considered full (M = 2.20, SD = 0.78) or distinctive (M = 2.53, SD = 1.18; Supplementary Table 1). Correlations between codes ranged from r = −0.23 (decorated and empty) to r = 0.90 (tidy and organized); nearly all other correlations were positive or not significantly different from zero, suggesting that raters perceived pleasant features of room décor as co-occurring (Supplementary Table 2). Few rooms (n = 16) had evidence of disability adaptations; the frequency was too low to estimate regression analyses.

Personality, Functional Limitations, and Residential Status Differences in Decor

First, we assessed whether functional limitations were associated with room décor. A large proportion of the sample had at least one functional limitation (n = 170; 59%), and individuals with more functional limitations had living areas that were rated as more cluttered (B = 0.01, p = .011) and less bright (B = −0.004, p = .028; Table 2).

Table 2.

Linear Regression Results for Functional Limitations Predicting Clutter and Brightness (N = 286)

	Cluttera		Brightnessb
Variable	B	SE	B	SE
Intercept	3.91***	0.28	2.85***	0.26
Functional limitationsc	0.01*	0.00	−0.00*	0.00
Covariates
Room sized	−0.50***	0.06	0.21***	0.06
Female	−0.18	0.13	−0.08	0.12
Age	−0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
Racial/ethnic minoritye	0.11	0.15	−0.11	0.14
Live alone	0.21	0.14	0.38**	0.13
High school or less	Ref		Ref
College	−0.33	0.21	−0.04	0.19
College graduate	−0.26	0.20	0.09	0.19
F	11.70***   0.23		4.18***   0.08
Adjusted R2

^a1 (uncluttered) to 5 (cluttered).

^b1 (dim) to 5 (bright).

^c0 (no functional limitations) to 100 (substantial functional limitations).

^d1 (very small) to 5 (very large).

^e1 (ethnic or racial minorities) and 0 (non-Hispanic White).

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Next, we examined whether differences in personality are associated with qualities of the living space. Ordinary least sqaures regressions revealed that two facets of personality were associated with aspects of room décor. Extraversion was positively associated with newness (B = 0.16, p = .003) and cheerfulness (B = 0.14, p = .022) but not significantly associated with comfort. Likewise, conscientiousness was positively associated with newness (B = 0.22, p = .004) and comfort (B = 0.17, p = .023) but not significantly associated with cheerfulness (Table 3). Agreeableness, openness, and neuroticism were not significantly associated with the room décor factors (Supplementary Table 3).

Table 3.

Linear Regression Results for Personality Traits Predicting Room Characteristics (N = 286)

	Extraversion						Conscientiousness
	Factor 1 Newnessa		Factor 2 Comfortb		Factor 3 Cheerfulnessc		Factor 1 Newnessa		Factor 2 Comfortb		Factor 3 Cheerfulnessc
Variable	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Intercept	2.17***	0.18	2.05***	0.18	2.04***	0.21	2.20***	0.18	2.07***	0.18	2.07***	0.22
Extraversiond	0.16**	0.05	0.00	0.05	0.14*	0.06	—	—	—	—	—	—
Conscientiousnesse	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.22**	0.07	0.17*	0.07	0.15	0.09
Covariates
Room sizef	0.33***	0.04	0.47***	0.04	0.31***	0.05	0.32***	0.04	0.47***	0.04	0.31***	0.05
Female	0.02	0.09	0.17	0.09	0.07	0.10	0.00	0.09	0.17	0.09	0.06	0.10
Age	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01
Racial/ethnic minorityg	−0.24*	0.10	−0.17	0.10	−0.07	0.12	−0.21*	0.10	−0.16	0.10	−0.05	0.12
Live alone	−0.06	0.10	−0.21*	0.10	0.03	0.11	−0.08	0.10	−0.21*	0.09	0.01	0.11
High school or less	Ref		Ref		Ref		Ref		Ref		Ref
College	0.29*	0.15	0.24	0.14	0.18	0.16	0.27	0.14	0.21	0.14	0.17	0.16
College graduate or more	0.37**	0.14	0.28*	0.14	0.32*	0.16	0.34*	0.14	0.24	0.14	0.30	0.16
F	12.75***		20.28***		7.29***		12.68***		21.31***		6.92***
Adjusted R2	0.25		0.35		0.15		0.25		0.36		0.14

Note: Continuous independent variables were grand-mean centered in the models.

^aMean of seven items (fresh, good condition, clean, expensive, styled, modern, and new).

^bMean of eight items (sociable, uncluttered, organized, tidy, empty, roomy, comfortable, and inviting).

^cMean of four items (decorated, cheerful, colorful, and distinctive).

^dMean of five items (outgoing, friendly, lively, active, and talkative).

^eMean of five items (organized, responsible, hardworking, careless, and thorough).

^f1 (very small) to 5 (very large).

^g1 (ethnic or racial minorities) and 0 (non-Hispanic White).

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

In models examining interactions between living alone × personality on room décor, an interaction term for openness was significant (Table 4). Simple slope tests revealed that when individuals lived alone, openness was positively associated with newness (B = 0.39, p = .006) and cheerfulness (B = 0.54, p = .001), but openness did not predict room décor for older adults who lived with others (Figure 1). Residential status did not moderate the association between other facets of personality and room décor or that between functional limitations and room décor (Supplementary Table 4).

Table 4.

Linear Regression Results for Personality Traits × Living Alone Predicting Room Characteristics (N = 286)

	Openness
	Factor 1 Newnessa		Factor 2 Comfortb		Factor 3 Cheerfulnessc
Variable	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Intercept	2.20***	0.18	2.05***	0.18	2.08***	0.21
Live alone	−0.08	0.10	−0.21*	0.10	0.02	0.11
Opennessd	−0.08	0.11	−0.15	0.11	−0.05	0.13
Opennessd × Live alone	0.47**	0.18	0.16	0.18	0.59**	0.21
Covariates
Room sizee	0.32***	0.04	0.46***	0.04	0.31***	0.05
Female	0.01	0.09	0.16	0.09	0.07	0.10
Age	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01
Racial/ethnic minorityf	−0.21*	0.10	−0.16	0.10	−0.05	0.12
High school or less	Ref		Ref		Ref
College	0.28*	0.14	0.25	0.14	0.15	0.16
College graduate or more	0.34*	0.14	0.31*	0.14	0.27	0.16
F	11.24***		18.26***		7.25***
Adjusted R2	0.24		0.35		0.16

Note: Continuous independent variables were grand-mean centered in the models.

^aMean of seven items (fresh, good condition, clean, expensive, styled, modern, new).

^bMean of eight items (sociable, uncluttered, organized, tidy, empty, roomy, comfortable, inviting).

^cMean of four items (decorated, cheerful, colorful, distinctive).

^dMean of six items (creative, intelligent, imaginative, broad-minded, sophisticated, adventurous).

^e1 (very small) to 5 (very large).

^f1 (ethnic or racial minorities) and 0 (non-Hispanic White).

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Predicted level of room characteristics by residential status and openness. Note: The top figure shows the predicted level of room characteristics—newness by residential status and varying levels of individuals’ openness. The bottom figure shows the predicted level of room characteristics—cheerfulness by residential status and varying levels of individuals’ openness. All other covariates were held at constant.

Room Décor and Depressive Symptoms

We estimated models examining associations between room décor and depressive symptoms; findings were not significant (Supplementary Table 5). We also examined models testing a proxy for goodness of fit. We first asked whether brightness and clutter moderated the association between functional limitations and depressive symptoms. Regarding personality traits and depressive symptoms, we examined the moderating effects of room décor factors (Supplementary Table 6).

More functional limitations were associated with more depressive symptoms if the room was less cluttered (B = 0.09, p < .001; Supplementary Figure 1). In other words, the interaction term shows that more clutter is associated with fewer depressive symptoms when individuals have functional limitations. Conscientiousness was negatively associated with depressive symptoms when the room scored higher on newness (B = −3.19, p < .001), as well as comfort (B = −3.94, p < .001; Supplementary Figure 2).

Sensitivity Analyses

We estimated additional models for personality with an overall room décor score averaging the 19 codes from the PLSCI, with a higher score indicating pleasantness of room décor (e.g., cleaner, brighter, up-to-date). Conscientiousness was positively associated with this indicator (Supplementary Table 7), but the approach using three factors revealed the nuances between personality traits and dimensions of room décor.

Discussion

Individuals often feel a sense of connection to their home in late life (Evans et al., 2002; Rubenstein, 1989; Wahl, et al., 2012). This study extends prior research by showing that the décor of a living space may express personal identity even in late life (Gosling et al., 2002), reinforcing the meaning of that space for the older adults (Percival, 2002). Motivation to age in place may be linked to these expressions of identity (Lawton, 1985).

This study involved an innovative approach to identify features of living space via photographs taken in older adults’ homes. In prior studies, participants subjectively rated their own home (Oswald et al., 2011) or interviewers rated the older adults’ home (Balestra & Sultan, 2013; Gitlin et al., 2002). These ratings may reflect the participant’s characteristics rather than objective features of the room (Gosling et al., 2005a). Our findings suggest that older adults manifest aspects of their identity in their personal space visible to an outside observer.

Personality, Functional Limitations, and Room Decor

Some personality traits were associated with room décor whereas other traits were not. Extraversion showed associations with newness and cheerfulness of the room, perhaps reflecting a desire to make the space appealing to social partners. In prior research when coders rated personality from dorm rooms, they had the greatest reliability with regard to extraversion (Gosling, 2002). Thus, it is possible that people express their extraversion in room décor more explicitly than they express other aspects of personality.

Likewise, conscientiousness was associated with newness and comfort (though not cheerfulness). Conscientiousness is associated with orderliness and organization (Jackson et al., 2010), and individuals may manifest those preferences in their living environments.

We also found that adults who live alone may have some latitude in adapting their environment to their degree of openness. In general, the field of gerontology has conceptualized living alone as a risk factor (Klinenberg, 2016; Stahl et al., 2017), but flexibility in décor of living space may be beneficial and openness may be associated with adaptability and autonomy. We did not examine the interactions between living alone and personality traits on depressive symptoms; it is possible that individuals with certain personality types (e.g., low on extraversion) fare better when living alone.

Prior research findings regarding environmental adaptations are complex (Connell, 1996; Lord et al., 2006). Some studies have suggested that the onset of disabilities is accompanied by alterations to the home environment that are protective (e.g., less clutter, better lighting; Gitlin, 2002). Control theory suggests individuals may alter the home environment to cope with aspects of their life in the face of health declines (Gitlin, 2002; Heckhausen et al., 2010). We found little evidence of physical adaptations (e.g., handrails, assisted chairs), but our sample was generally high functioning (Fingerman et al., 2021), and we did not examine bathrooms or bedrooms where such adaptations may be more evident.

Notably, when older adults had more functional limitations, the rooms tended to be out-of-date, uncomfortable, dim, and cluttered. These associations suggest older may have less energy to maintain their personal living spaces as they incur physical declines, contributing to the accumulation of clutter and poorer room quality.

Room Décor and Well-Being

Some interior design studies suggest room décor has a direct impact on mood and well-being (Bonaiuto & Aviles, 2012; Yildrim et al., 2011), but room décor was not directly associated with depressive symptoms. Rather, consistent with studies of possessions and satisfaction with living space (Ekerdt & Baker, 2014; Rubenstein, 1989), subjective perceptions may matter more than objective indicators of décor.

As a proxy for “goodness of fit,” we found modest evidence that room qualities moderate associations between conscientiousness and well-being. As such, when personality is expressed in aspects of room décor, older adults may report enhanced well-being.

Surprisingly, for individuals with more functional limitations, accumulation of clutter was associated with fewer depressive symptoms. This paradox suggests that “clutter” may represent an effort to exert primary control over the environment (Heckhausen et al., 2010), thus minimizing feelings of depression. Individuals with functional limitations may need things to be close at hand which may enhance the appearance of clutter.

Limitations and Implications

Understanding the home environment in late life is complicated due to regional and local differences, changes that occur in the home over short time periods (e.g., tidying, changing a lightbulb), and variability in décor throughout the house (Gitlin, 2002). We did not examine the duration of residence in the home (Oswald & Wahl, 2005). Likewise, possessions often bring a sense of connection to the past (Ekerdt & Baker, 2014). Despite these research limitations, we detected associations between home décor and aspects of personality and functional limitations.

The findings suggest practical implications. Older adults who have functional limitations may benefit from keeping up the living space (e.g., cleaning, repairs, and organizing items that could clutter). Such outside help may facilitate maintenance of independent living even before physical adaptations to the space are required. At the same time, the findings regarding clutter suggest that any clean-up or straightening should be done in collaboration rather than imposed on the older adult. Likewise, long-term care facilities might allow greater latitude in room décor to allow expression of individual identity and improve mood for their residents.

In summary, this study integrates perspectives from environmental psychology and gerontology to demonstrate older adults manifest some aspects of their personality in their living space (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness if they live alone). Functional limitations may erode the quality of the living space, even before the onset of disability, but some aspects of these changes (apparent clutter) may be associated with better well-being. These features were evident to the outside eye and support the notion that “home is where the heart is” in late life.

Funding

This work was supported by grants R01AG046460 and P30AG066614 from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and grant P2CHD042849 awarded to the Population Research Center (PRC) at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

This study was not formally preregistered. Data and additional documentation of the sample and measures are available upon request to the corresponding author.