Search Results for « Ageism »

When I was “coming of age” in the 1950s, the big social issue was racism. Then came sexism and heterosexism, but few had heard of ageism. Since Robert Butler introduced the term “ageism” in 1969, more and more people are becoming aware of it; more and more research and writing is devoted to it. When I published the first monograph on the topic, Ageism: Negative and Positive (1990), most people had still never heard of it and there was little research on it. But by 2005, there was enough research and analysis, so we could compile an Encyclopedia of ageism with 124 entries ( Palmore, Branch, & Harris, 2005 ). Now there is enough recent research to warrant this special section in The Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. Why should we be concerned with ageism? There are many reasons, but here is a list of the main ones: Everyone becomes vulnerable. Unlike racism, sexism, and heterosexism, whose victims belong to particular subpopulations, everyone becomes vulnerable to ageism if they live long enough. The rapidly increasing number of older adults is threatening the viability of the Social Security and Medicare systems and may fuel conflict between the generations. Ageism results in discrimination against older workers. The increasing ratio of retired to employed workers is partly due to ageism and represents an increasing loss of productive capacity in our nation. Ageism, like racism, sexism, and heterosexism, is a civil rights issue and should not be tolerated in an equalitarian society. We now know that the virus of ageism infects most people in most countries around the world ( Palmore, Whittington, & Kunkel, 2009 ). Even older people continue to believe the negative stereotype that most old people are weak, sick, or senile. We know that when older adults internalize these stereotypes, it can affect their own functioning and health. We know that these stereotypes contribute to widespread discrimination against older people in employment, medical care, institutionalization, and even in families. What we need to know are answers to two types of questions: What are the trends in ageism over time? Is it decreasing, increasing, or remaining constant? What are the evidence-based interventions that successfully and efficiently reduce ageism? We are all familiar with advertisements touting “anti-aging” creams, pills, and other nostrums that are claimed to stop or even “reverse aging.” But there are no advertisements for interventions, programs, workshops, legislation, or education that can reverse ageism. What we need now are proven methods of reversing ageism. I have listed several actions, both individual and organized, that may reduce ageism ( Palmore, 1999 ). The individual actions include educating oneself and others about the facts on aging; avoiding ageist jokes and birthday cards; avoiding ageist terms such as “old coot” and “old maid;” avoiding ageist language, which equates old age with sickness and senescence or equating youth with vigor and health; writing letters to editors protesting ageist articles and policies; and voting for candidates who oppose ageism. Organized actions include use of public meetings and various media to inform and persuade people to reduce their ageism; lobbying for legislation to reduce ageism; use of petitions and class action suits to encourage better enforcement of current laws against ageism; voter registration drives among older adults, especially those in long-term care institutions; and enlisting the cooperation of various organizations such as churches or synagogues, civic clubs, and unions. The main problem with all these suggestions is that they have rarely been tested in practice. A few studies have found that education about aging can increase knowledge about aging and that increases in knowledge can reduce negative stereotypes about aging. But these few studies have been quite limited in scope and methods, and their results have been unimpressive. What we need is the equivalent of clinical trials on large populations. Ageism is a kind of “social disease,” which is spread from person to person and from generation to generation. To reduce it significantly will require substantial and rigorous research on the efficacy of various methods, and even more resources to apply these methods to large populations. For example, are movies more effective than the written word? Is simple correction of misconceptions effective without emotional persuasion? How effective is legislation in reducing ageism? Empirically based answers to these questions are essential. A major problem with attempting to reduce ageism is that ageism is ingrained in our culture. Movies, TV, literature, jokes, cartoons, greeting cards, and songs all tend to depict older people as senile or decrepit ( Palmore et al., 2005 ). Even our language tends to equate old age with frailty, impairment, and senility. Recent research purports to measure “biological age,” which is defined as impairments in various biological functions such as blood pressure and lung capacity. Such biological reductionism is not a useful addition to objective gerontology. Ageism is so much a part of our culture that most people are not even aware of it. It is like the air we breathe. Most people become aware of it only when they grow old enough to suffer some discrimination in employment or some disparaging remark or “joke” about their age. One of the first steps to reduce ageism is to increase awareness of it. Notice when your associates, friends, or relatives engage in some ageist behavior or assumptions. Try pointing out to them the prejudice reflected in such behaviors or assumptions. This special section features some excellent and useful recent research on ageism and the harmful effects of age stereotypes. Emile, d’Arripe-Longueville, Cheval, Amato, and Chalabaev (2015) use longitudinal data to show that endorsement of age stereotypes about physical activity predicts subjective vitality among active older adults: the more negative stereotypes endorsed, the more negative one’s subjective vitality. Levy, Slade, Chung, and Gill (2015) track older adults for a period of 10 years and find that despite negative stereotypes not changing following stressful events, more negative age stereotypes are associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization. Barber, Mather, and Gatz (2015) report that older adults respond to stereotype threat by becoming vigilant to avoid the losses that will make their performance worsen. However, when the reward structure emphasizes gaining correct answers, stereotype threat produces impaired performance. This latter finding can be used by researchers and clinicians to reduce the negative effects of stereotype threat. Vauclair and colleagues (2015) use data from 28 European nations and find that the adverse effects of income inequality on older people’s health are mainly explained by perceived age discrimination. Fung and colleagues (2015) use experimental methods and conclude that positive portrayals of old age generally have positive effects on perceptions of personal aging, but not when the portrayals were extremely positive and unrealistic. The article shows that one must be careful not to exceed credibility when trying to intervene with positive portrayals. These articles document the importance of various forms of ageism on important indicators of well-being including self-esteem and health. More generally, these articles throw new light on the serious detrimental effects of ageism. Such articles may increase public awareness of ageism and its negative consequences. It is almost traditional to conclude research reports by calling for more research; but in this case, it should be obvious that we are just beginning to understand the causes and consequences of ageism, and especially how to effectively and efficiently reduce it. May this special editorial and the articles in the special section serve as a call for more research and awareness of ageism, as well as for better efforts to reduce it.

One of the most widespread beliefs about the occurrence of age discrimination is that it is attributable to age stereotypes. However, the mere activation of age stereotypes is by no means a sufficient condition for the occurrence of age discrimination. Accordingly, the aim of this chapter is to critically review the hypothesis that age stereotypes cause age discrimination considering their conceptual relatedness as well as empirical evidence. It is important to acknowledge that age discrimination and age stereotypes are domain-specific phenomena. Besides taking contextual aspects into account, we also consider the perspectives of both the actor (i.e., the discriminating person) and the perceiver (i.e., the older adult who is being discriminated against and/or perceives age discrimination) to better understand the stereotype-discrimination association. Regarding the actor’s perspective, several studies identified moderators of the relationship between age stereotypes and age discrimination. This perspective can be complemented by considering that older adults themselves also hold age stereotypes that affect their interpretation of other peoples’ behaviour towards them and even their own behaviour. Accordingly, a reciprocal relation between the stereotypes held by both parts is easily conceivable where their expectations and behaviours mutually reinforce each other. In order to understand the relations between age stereotypes and age discrimination it is necessary to consider personal characteristics and contextual constraints on both parts, and to acknowledge the added complexity and domain-specificity of the relations between age stereotypes and age discrimination in real life interactions.

Subjective age, or how young or old individuals experience themselves to be relative to their chronological age, is a crucial construct in gerontology. Subjective age is a significant predictor of important health outcomes, but little is known about the criteria by which individuals' subjectively evaluate their age. To identify psychosocial and biomedical factors linked to the subjective evaluation of age, this study examined whether perceived age discrimination and markers of biological aging are associated with subjective age. Participants were 4776 adults (Mage = 68) from the 2008 and 2010 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) who completed measures of subjective age, age discrimination, demographic variables, self-rated health and depression, and had physical health measures, including peak expiratory flow, grip strength, waist circumference, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Telomere length was available for a subset of participants in the 2008 wave (n = 2214). Regression analysis indicated that perceived age discrimination, lower peak expiratory flow, lower grip strength, and higher waist circumference were associated with an older subjective age, controlling for sociodemographic factors, self-rated health, and depression. In contrast, blood pressure and telomere length were not related to subjective age. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that how old a person feels depends in part on psychosocial and biomedical factors, including the experiences of ageism and perceptible indices of fitness and biological age.

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed many aspects of the world, including how older persons are treated. We believe that research evidence from the behavioral sciences of aging can help address the pandemic in ways that can benefit the health and well-being of individuals across the life span. We think that there are three primary ways that evidence from behavioral sciences can make a difference. First, with the pandemic there has been a parallel outbreak of ageism. What we are seeing in public discourse is an increasing portrayal of those over the age of 70 as being all alike with regard to being helpless, frail, and unable to contribute to society. These views are being spread by social media, the press, and public announcements by government officials throughout the world (see Table 1 for examples). This is problematic for a number of reasons. Behavioral scientists know that older adults are an extremely heterogeneous group (Fingerman & Trevino, 2020). They differ in life experiences, cultural backgrounds, genetics, and health histories. Further, the process of aging itself is highly diverse and context-dependent; this is a fundamental insight of biological, behavioral, and social aging research (Kornadt & Rothermund, 2015; Wahl & Gerstorf, 2018). In addition, innumerable older persons defy the image of being frail and helpless, with countless older adults making valuable contributions to society (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2016; Diehl, Smyer, & Mehrotra, in press). Illustrations of Older Adults’ Portrayal as Helpless, Frail, and Unable to Contribute to Society in Various Media Reports Illustrations of Older Adults’ Portrayal as Helpless, Frail, and Unable to Contribute to Society in Various Media Reports We know from stereotype embodiment theory that negative age stereotypes can be internalized by people of all ages and when these views become self-relevant, influencing older persons’ beliefs about their own aging, they can detrimentally impact health (Levy, 2009). Indeed, extensive experimental, longitudinal, and cross-cultural research has shown that negative age beliefs adversely affect a wide array of health outcomes (e.g., Chasteen, Pichora-Fuller, Dupuis, Smith, & Singh, 2015; Levy, Slade, Kunkel, & Kasl, 2002; Levy et al., 2016; Siebert, Braun, & Wahl, 2020) as well as emotional responses to stress (Bellingtier & Neupert, 2018) of older persons. In addition, ageism, which includes negative age stereotypes, can have detrimental effects at the societal level. For example, in terms of the health care costs, ageism can have substantial economic costs for countries, which could compound the economic strains of the pandemic (Levy, Slade, Chang, Kannoth, & Wang, 2020). The second way that evidence from the behavioral sciences of aging can contribute to the response to the pandemic is by highlighting the value of strengthening solidarity between the generations. The distinction between young and old, as well as language about “walling off the old” that is stressed in current public discourse reinforce our already age-divided societies (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2005). As older adults are portrayed as susceptible to the negative effects of the COVID-19 outbreak, younger people tend to view themselves as immune to the virus and, thus, engage in risk behaviors with consequences that ultimately will need to be addressed by an already stressed health care system. The growing division between young and old also allows younger people to direct their anger and resentment about the situation towards older adults, who are clearly portrayed as the out group. In the future, this age division and negative portrayal of older adults and aging may affect younger people’s aging process as they too internalize negative messages about old age and aging in the context of the current pandemic (Levy, 2009). As behavioral scientists, it is our responsibility to stay alert to these dynamics and to educate the public about their dangers. Rather than pitting generations against each other, we should facilitate intergenerational exchange and solidarity. We can draw on the considerable body of research that shows that even with physical distancing, there are numerous ways to strengthen social contacts between members of different generations. These ways include, but are not limited to, the use of online services like Zoom or FaceTime, phone calls, letters and engaging in common activities such as reading the same book or watching the same show and then discussing it. Physical distancing does not need to bring about emotional distancing. As soon as intergenerational contact becomes individualized (e.g., within families, personal contacts to older neighbors) rather than taking place in public discourse, negative effects of social categorization, stigmatization, prejudice, and stereotyping are strongly reduced and replaced by norms of solidarity and relatedness (e.g., Bengtson & Putney, 2006). Fostering this form of personal contact between old and young is an important means to overcome intergenerational tensions and ageism resulting from it. The third way that evidence from the behavioral sciences of aging can contribute to a more balanced discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic is through enriching discussions about the significant ethical questions that have been raised by this outbreak. There is no doubt that this pandemic will strain and even overburden the health systems in many countries. Situations have already arisen where resources were not sufficient for all individuals in need. Hence, difficult decisions have had to be made: Who should be treated first (or at all)? Ethics-based rules for triage situations have to be developed in order to avoid ad hoc decisions of the health professionals on the frontline who are under enormous pressure to help everybody in need. Making triage decisions means, in the extreme, to help one person live and let another person die. We fear chronological age will become an accepted criterion in the very near future for such decisions—which would be the most blatant expression of ageism. Despite recent efforts to combat ageism (Officer & de la Fuente-Núñez, 2018) and to foster intergenerational solidarity, we see currently a worldwide and full-blown emergence of ageism and intergenerational division. At times of scarce resources, intergroup conflicts are likely to emerge (Stephan & Stephan, 2017). Because behavioral scientists know about the risks inherent in such intergroup conflicts, the current emergency situation is exactly the time when we need social and intergenerational solidarity the most (Durant, 2011). In the following, we offer a few recommendations that may be helpful in navigating the current pandemic. One major step to tackle the current pandemic of ageism and intergenerational divide is to avoid the use of arbitrary age cutoffs. It is indeed far from clear at present how the association between older age and symptom severity and mortality from the COVID-19 can be explained (https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/30/what-explains-coronavirus-lethality-for-elderly/; download on April 8, 2020). Chronological age should not be a sole criterion for determining risk or access to medical care (Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, 2020). Instead, we should acknowledge and stress the complex intersectionalities that may put some people at a greater risk for the direct and indirect negative consequences of COVID-19. Although older adults might be more susceptible to COVID-19 in general, we also have to acknowledge the multiple negative effects that COVID-19 has on younger people. In fact, recent research suggests that younger adults are at greater risk of psychological distress and loneliness during COVID-19 lockdowns than older adults. Further, those with more negative aging attitudes were also more likely to report higher distress and loneliness during the lockdown (Losada-Baltar et al., 2020). We know that it is not only chronological age, but also the presence of chronic illness and comorbidities that make individuals more vulnerable to COVID-19. We also know that during emergency situations, older adults with cognitive or physical impairments face even greater risks for having their autonomy compromised and their human rights violated (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2020). We urge specific attention and protection for those who are most likely to be classified as vulnerable or at-risk. Given the promotion of physical distancing practices and the increasing reliance on digital technology to manage daily functioning, limited access to technology or limited ability to use technology might become major risk factors for depression and loneliness. These factors may be especially risky for some older adults by preventing them from accessing goods and services and obtaining the social support they may need during the outbreak. Thus, taking into account the “digital divide” that may exist for disadvantaged older adults also deserves attention. As behavioral scientists, we should use research evidence to inform the current public discourse and make it more effective and useful for older adults and society at large. An important means to avoid confrontational discourse is to refrain from broad age-based categorizations, resulting in sweeping generalizations and a lack of differentiation. Ageism and categorization can be overcome by stressing that we are all in this together rather than emphasizing age as the critical variable, by individualizing communication and interaction, by drawing on personalized rather than generalized messages, and by invoking references to individual people. There is enough research evidence to guide current efforts to identify at-risk individuals in a more refined and effective way, aside from looking only at chronological age. In conclusion, in this editorial, we have been concerned with the effects of the COVID-19 public discourse on the lives of older adults, and the solidarity between generations. We believe that behavioral scientists have a responsibility to participate in the current public discourse to correct misperceptions, over-generalizations, and ethically questionable suggestions. Authors are listed in alphabetical order but contributed equally to this work.

The progressive aging of society, caused by profound demographic changes, brings with it the necessity of confronting the subject of biases against the elderly. Ageism, in fact, can influence society's attitudes regarding this population, in addition to impacting the self-perception of elderly people. This, in turn, has consequences for positive outcomes during the aging process. The current research aims to investigate the simultaneous relationships between knowledge, age, anxiety about aging, and stereotypes toward the elderly, as well as their predictive roles with respect to ageism. A self-report questionnaire was administered to 886 participants, with an average age of 35.8 years (Standard Deviation-SD = 14.2), predominantly female (64.8%). Descriptive and correlational analyses were performed, along with structural equation modeling. Based on the analyses conducted, anxiety about aging and knowledge are antecedents for stereotypes, which in turn, together with the other variables, influence ageism. Increased education about the aging process could help reduce anxiety and stereotypes against the aging among those who are most responsible for prejudice against the elderly. Knowledge of the antecedents of prejudice toward the elderly is fundamental to promoting positive attitudes toward them.

In assessing the ability to benefit from treatment, \nchronological age is less important than other factors \nconcerned with the biological ageing process and the \npresence of associated disease. Any rationing because of limitation of health resources should be on the basis of assessed individual physiological ability to benefit, not on the basis of age any more than on sex or skin colour.

This chapter offers a theoretical contribution to the discussions revolving around multiple marginalizations based on age. Our main focus is on gendered ageism, where vulnerability and marginalization is based on the interaction of age and gender, and its potential to highlight the processes and practices of marginalization. Based on the understanding of ageism as a socio-cultural practice involving privilege, subordination, and inequality, we rework existing conceptualizations of multiple marginalizations and of gendered ageism. The understanding of ageism as a form of doing enmeshed in interlocking power structures draws attention to the importance of socio-cultural context and the dynamics involved in the creation and reproduction of social reality, including social inequalities. This chapter draws on a wide range of existing studies to illustrate and explain this new approach. It concludes with an outline of an applicable research programme that yields novel ways of exploring multiple inequalities in later life and gendered ageism more specifically.

Ageism is recognized as a significant obstacle to older people's well-being, but age discrimination against younger people has attracted less attention. We investigate levels of perceived age discrimination across early to late adulthood, using data from the European Social Survey (ESS), collected in 29 countries (N = 56,272). We test for approximate measurement invariance across countries. We use local structural equation modeling as well as moderated nonlinear factor analysis to test for measurement invariance across age as a continuous variable. Using models that account for the moderate degree of noninvariance, we find that younger people report experiencing the highest levels of age discrimination. We also find that national context substantially affects levels of ageism experienced among older respondents. The evidence highlights that more research is needed to address ageism in youth and across the life span, not just old adulthood. It also highlights the need to consider factors that differently contribute to forms of ageism experienced by people at different life stages and ages. (PsycINFO Database Record

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While studies have researched ageism in public policy, few investigated the impact of aging policy on ageism-typically, an unintended consequence. Ageism is linked to $63 billion in health care costs, so its antecedents are of interest. We test the association between Aging Policy Agenda Setting and Societal Age Stereotypes and hypothesize a mediating pathway via Medicalization of Aging, moderated by demographics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Scholars identified Singapore's Pioneer Generation Policy (PGP) as one of the largest policy implementations in recent years, where the agenda was set by the Prime Minister at an equivalent State of the Union address in 2013, and US$7 billion allocated to fund outpatient health care costs for aged 65 years or older. More than 400,000 older adults received a PGP card and home visits by trained volunteers who co-devised a personalized utilization plan. We leveraged a 10-billion-word data set with more than 30 million newspaper and magazine articles to dynamically track Societal Age Stereotype scores over 8 years from pre- to postpolicy implementation. RESULTS: Societal Age Stereotypes followed a quadratic trend: Prior to the Aging Policy Agenda Setting from 2010 to 2014, stereotypes were trending positive; after 2014, it trended downward to become more negative. Medicalization of Aging mediated the relationship between Aging Policy Agenda Setting and Societal Age Stereotypes. Furthermore, Old-age Support Ratio moderated the mediational model, suggesting that the impact of policy on medicalization is stronger when a society is more aged. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We provided a framework for policymakers to ameliorate the unintended consequences of aging policies on societal ageism-if unaddressed, it will exert an insidious toll on older adults, even if initial policies are well-intentioned.