Ageism in Japan

| November 13, 2015

Ageism in Japan

The following below is from the syllabus:

Purpose of Paper: The purpose of this paper is to help you understand cross cultural
perspectives on aging in American culture and subcultures or any other culture that you
choose (Japan.) You should be able to discuss culture and use anthropological perspectives to explore aging. The final product will combine personal reflection, anthropological analysis, and library research. The best papers apply anthropological concepts and vocabulary to understanding issues related to aging.

Introduction, thesis, discussion and conclusion. The usual.

The ten sources, that I will upload later, will have to be included in the paper. These resources must be from my school library database. Which is why I will upload the sources.

Again the topic of this research has to be a relevant anthropological issue which in this paper is ageism in Japan.
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2005, pp. 207–221
Ageism: Prejudice Against Our Feared Future Self
Todd D. Nelson
California State University-Stanislaus
For decades, researchers have discovered much about how humans automatically
categorize others in social perception. Some categorizations—race, gender,
and age—are so automatic that they are termed “primitive categories.” As
we categorize, we often develop stereotypes about the categories. Researchers
know much about racism and sexism, but comparatively little about prejudicing
and stereotyping based on age. The articles in this issue highlight the current
empirical and theoretical work by researchers in gerontology, psychology, communication,
and related fields on understanding the origins and consequences of
stereotyping and prejudicing against older adults. With the aging baby boomer
demographic, it is especially timely for researchers to work to understand how
society can shed its institutionalized ageism and promote respect for elders.
Walking down the street, you glance at people, which triggers an attending
automatic categorization of each individual along three dimensions: race, gender,
and age. This categorization is so well-learned and so fundamental to social perception
that researchers refer to these dimensions as “primitive” or “automatic”
categories (Bargh, 1994; Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Hamilton &
Sherman, 1994). Indeed, for decades, researchers have studied extensively the
influence of this automatic race categorization on impression formation (Dovidio
&Gaertner, 1986; Jones, 1997; Schuman, Steeh, Bobo,&Krysan, 1997). The study
of racism has been and continues to be a major focus of research (Nelson, 2002b;
Plous, 2002; Schneider, 2004). Similarly, a tremendous number of studies have
investigated prejudice based on gender (Swann, Langlois, & Gilbert, 1999). However,
researchers have devoted comparatively little attention to prejudice based
on age: ageism (Butler, 1969; Nelson, 2002a). As an illustration of this point,
consider the results of a PsychINFO search I conducted minutes before writing
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Todd D. Nelson, Department of
Psychology, California State University-Stanislaus, 801 W. Monte Vista Ave., Turlock, CA, 95382
[e-mail: tnelson@athena.csustan.edu].
Portions of this article are presented earlier elsewhere (Nelson, 2002a, 2002b).
207
C 
2005 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
208 Nelson
this article. A search for “racism” yielded 3,111 documents, while a search for
“sexism” yielded 1,385 documents, and a search for “ageism” produced only 294
documents.
Why have researchers essentially ignored one of the three critical dimensions
upon which we categorize others in social perception? While a number of factors
may account for this empirical imbalance, one reason may account for most of this
disparity. Age prejudice in this country is one of the most socially-condoned and
institutionalized forms of prejudice, such that researchers may tend to overlook it
as a phenomenon to be studied (Nelson, 2002a; Palmore, 1999). For example, a
cornerstone of the birthday greeting card industry is the message that it is unfortunate
that one is another year older. While couched in jokes and humor, society
is clearly saying one thing: getting old is bad. A recent survey found that approximately
90 million Americans each year purchase products or undergo procedures
that hide physical signs of aging (National Consumer’s League, 2004). Why? Why
does society view aging as a negative thing?
A Brief History of Ageism
The institutionalization of ageism has its roots in the increasingly negative
way the United States (and to a lesser degree, other countries, see Ng, 2002
for a detailed review) views older adults. Older adults in the United States tend
to be marginalized, institutionalized, and stripped of responsibility, power, and,
ultimately, their dignity (Nelson, 2002a). It wasn’t always thus. In most prehistoric
and agrarian societies, older people were often held in high regard. They were
the teachers. By virtue of their age and greater experience, they were regarded as
wise and they were the custodians of the traditions and history of their people. In
biblical times, if one lived beyond age 50, it was believed he or she was chosen
by God for a divine purpose (Branco & Williamson, 1982). However, attitudes
toward older people began to shift dramatically with two major developments in
civilization. First, the advent of the printing press was responsible for a major
change in the status of elders (Branco &Williamson, 1982). The culture, tradition,
and history of a society or tribe now could be repeated innumerable times, in exact
detail through books, and the status and power elders once had as the village
historians was greatly reduced and, in many cases, eliminated.
The second major development in society that led to a shift in attitudes toward
the elderly was the industrial revolution (Stearns, 1986). The industrial revolution
demanded great mobility in families—to go where the jobs were. In light of this
new pressure to be mobile, the extended family structure (with grandparents in the
household) was less adaptive. Older people were not as mobile as younger people.
These jobs tended to be oriented toward long, difficult, manual labor, and the jobs
were thus more suited to younger, stronger workers. Experience in a position was
not as valued as the ability to adapt to changes and changing technology. Around
Ageism 209
this time, great advances in medicine were taking place, extending life expectancy
significantly. Society was not prepared to deal with this new large population of
older adults. Society began to associate old age with negative qualities, and older
adults were regarded as non-contributing burdens on society (Branco&Williamson,
1982). These negative attitudes have persisted in our society, and have in fact, only
increased (Nelson, 2002a; Palmore, 1999). Older persons today are treated as
second-class citizens with nothing to offer society and the negative attitudes about
aging that give rise to ageism tend to manifest themselves in subtle ways in the
daily life of the average older person.
Manifestations of Ageism in Daily Life
Patronizing Language
Paradoxically, people with positive attitudes toward older people often seem
to communicate with older people according to negative stereotypes about older
persons. Two major types of negative communication have been identified by researchers:
overaccommodation and baby talk. In overaccommodation, younger
individuals become overly polite, speak louder and slower, exaggerate their intonation,
have a higher pitch, and talk in simple sentences with elders (Giles, Fox,
Harwood, & Williams, 1994). This is based on the stereotype that older people
have hearing problems, decreasing intellect, and slower cognitive functioning (Kite
& Wagner, 2002). Overaccommodation also manifests itself in the downplaying
of serious thoughts, concerns, and feelings expressed by older people (Grainger,
Atkinson,&Coupland, 1990). In one study (Kemper, 1994), caregivers at a nursing
home were found to speak in simple, short sentences. They repeated their sentences
and spoke slower to older adults. Interestingly, this pattern did not vary as a function
of the cognitive state or physical health of the individual. What seemed to
trigger this overaccommodating speech style was simply the age of the individual.
That is, all older persons were treated this way, which suggests a strong influence
of a negative stereotype influencing the behavior of these caregivers.
A more negative, condescending form of overaccommodation is what is
termed baby talk (Caporael, 1981). Baby talk is a “simplified speech register. . .
[with] high pitch and exaggerated intonation” (Caporael & Culbertson, 1986).
As the term implies, people often use it to talk to babies (termed primary baby
talk) but such intonation is used, also, when talking to pets, inanimate objects,
and adults (termed secondary baby talk). In one of the first experiments on this
phenomenon, Caporael (1981) filtered out the content of secondary baby talk directed
to adults and had young adults attempt to differentiate it from primary baby
talk. Participants were unable to distinguish between the two types of baby talk,
which indicates that the only thing that distinguishes secondary baby talk from
primary baby talk is the content. The exaggerated tone, simplified speech and high
210 Nelson
pitch of the talk are virtually identical. How do older people respond to this type of
treatment? The evidence is mixed. Some data (Edwards&Noller, 1993; O’Connor
& Rigby, 1996) shows that some older people have a positive attitude toward this
talk, and in fact, they feel better about themselves when they receive more frequent
baby talk. Other research shows that older people resent baby talk and negatively
evaluate people who speak that way toward them (Ryan, Hamilton, & See, 1994).
Caporeal, Lukaszewski, and Culbertson (1983) found that older people who have
lower functional abilities preferred secondary baby talk to other types of speech,
because it conveys a soothing, nurturing quality. This is interesting because older
persons who have higher cognitive and social functioning regard secondary baby
talk as disrespectful, condescending, and humiliating (Giles et al., 1994). In addition
to these features, secondary baby talk is ageist and insulting because it
connotes a dependency relationship (i.e., the target of the secondary baby talk is
dependent on the speaker; Caporael & Culbertson, 1986). The use of this type of
speech appears to be associated with the stereotype of all older persons as having
deficits in cognitive abilities, and therefore needing special communication at a
slower, simpler level. Cross-cultural research also indicates that both primary and
secondary baby talk appear to be universal, occurring in small preliterate societies
as well as modern industrialized cities (Caporael & Culbertson, 1986).
Effects of Pseudopositive Attitudes on Older People
According to Arluke and Levin (1984), infantilization creates a self-fulfilling
prophecy in that older people come to accept and believe that they are no longer
independent, contributing adults (they must assume a passive, dependent role;
Butler, Lewis, & Sunderland, 1991). The acceptance of such a role and the loss of
self-esteem (that one derives from feeling like a useful, valued member of society)
in an older individual occurs gradually over his/her life, as he/she is continually exposed
to society’s subtle and not-so-subtle infantilization of older people (Ansello,
1978; Rodin & Langer, 1980). When older people come to believe and act according
to these age myths and stereotypes, it then reinforces the maintenance of such
stereotypes and treatment of older persons (Grant, 1996).
The cumulative effect of hearing from others that one is “old” will eventually
bring about “older” behavior and an “older self-image” in the older individual
via a basic self-fulfilling prophecy effect. In a series of studies, Giles and his
colleagues (Giles et al., 1994; Giles, Fox, & Smith, 1993) found that elder adult
targets of overaccommodation appear (to independent raters) to “instantly age”
in that they look, talk, move, think, and sound older than control participants
(those with no overaccommocation). Harris, Moniz, Sowards, and Krane (1994)
reported that when undergraduates believed they were making a teaching video for
an older partner (in another room) were more overtly anxious, and showed signs
of withdrawal and negative affect. Students who watched this videotape answered
Ageism 211
fewer questions correctly, rated the teacher less positively and felt worse about
their own performance. These data represent indirect evidence for the notion that
anxiety and negative expectancies directed toward an older target lead that target
to also feel anxiety, generalized negative affect (about oneself and one’s young
interaction partner), and suffer performance deficits as a result.
Ageism in the Helping Professions
One might think that if there was any person who would be least likely to hold
stereotypes about and be prejudiced against older persons, it would be those whose
job it is to help older persons. Sadly, research has shown that counselors, educators,
and other health professionals are just as likely to be prejudiced against older
people as other individuals (Pasupathi & Lockenhoff, 2002; Troll & Schlossberg,
1971). For example, Reyes-Ortiz (1997) suggested that many physicians have a
negative or stereotypical view of their older patients. Specifically, older patients
are often viewed by doctors as “depressing, senile, untreatable, or rigid” (p. 831).
Physicians may feel frustrated or angry when confronted with cognitive or physical
limitations of older people, and may approach treatment with a feeling of futility
(Wilkinson & Ferraro, 2002). Levenson (1981) argued that “medical students’
attitudes have reflected a prejudice against older persons surpassed only by their
racial prejudice” (p. 161). He suggests that the medical community implicitly
trains doctors to treat patients with an age bias, putting little value on geriatrics
in the medical school curriculum. Levenson further suggests that in their medical
training, medical students learn to approach the treatment of older people with a
noticeable degree of apathy or even disdain. According to Levenson, doctors all
too often think that because old age is unstoppable, illnesses that accompany old
age are not that important, because such illnesses are seen as a natural part of the
aging process.
Curiously, the perpetuation of the myth of aging as a state of continual physical
and cognitive decline leads to the continued treatment focus on disease management,
versus prevention. Much evidence suggests that many of the “usual” disease
processes associated with aging (e.g., osteoporosis, diabetes, blood pressure) can
be changed and addressed proactively (Grant, 1996). Indeed, the expectation that
older people have cognitive and physical deficits, can be debilitating to the older
individual in terms of self-esteem and performance. Avorn and Langer (1982)
found that when nursing home residents were helped with a jigsaw puzzle versus
simply encouraged, they rated the task as more difficult, believed themselves to
be less able, and their performance on the puzzle was much poorer.
Treatment for older people by psychologists shows evidence of stereotypes and
ageist views also. Many therapists are what Kastenbaum (1964) calls a “reluctant
therapist” when it comes to older clients, because of many pervasive stereotypes
therapists may have about older people (e.g., older people don’t talk much, or they
212 Nelson
talk too much; Garfinkel, 1975). Even when presenting with the same symptoms,
older persons are less likely than younger clients to get referred for psychiatric
assessments (Hillerbrand & Shaw, 1990). Some evidence suggests that this may
be due to the perception by some therapists that the problems of older patients
are not as serious or as important as when those identical concerns are expressed
by younger patients (Ivey, Wieling, & Harris, 2000). As an indicator of the presumption
of a poorer prognosis for the older client, Ford and Sbordonne (1980)
found that psychiatrists were more likely to recommend drug therapy rather than
psychotherapy for the treatment of depression. In a survey of 350 psychiatrists,
Ray, Raciti, and Ford (1985) found that females, and those of a psychoanalytic
orientation held the most negative views toward older patients. Gatz and Pearson
(1988) suggest that this may not reflect “professional ageism,” but rather a tendency
to exaggerate the competency and excuse the failings of older clients (in
an effort to be non-discriminatory). However, there is a lack of compelling evidence
to support this speculation. Because of methodological problems and mixed
evidence for ageism in psychological services to older people (e.g., Dye, 1978,
found no ageism in diagnoses of depression), it is unclear whether there is a strong
ageist bias among mental health professionals. Rather, it may be the case that
therapists are more influenced by misconceptions about normal aging processes,
and as such, ageist thinking can be addressed in clinical training with increased
emphasis on understanding the normal and abnormal aspects of the aging process
(Gatz & Pearson, 1988).
The mixed data on the issue of ageism among psychological therapists has led
some researchers to the conclusion that the bias observed in the delivery of psychological
services indicates not ageism, but healthism (stereotypes about individuals
who are in poor physical health; Gekoski & Knox, 1990; James & Haley, 1995).
In their national survey of doctoral-level psychologists, James and Haley (1995)
found that psychologists continue to rate the psychological prognosis of older individuals
asworse than younger clients presenting with the same symptoms. These
authors also found that psychologists gave worse interpersonal ratings for persons
with poor physical health than those with no health problems. In a similar design
with undergraduate raters, Gekoski and Knox (1990) found that only people in
poor health were rated negatively on personality measures. This is a problem however,
because there is no reason why, for example, people in poor physical health
should be rated worse on personality dimensions (e.g., introverted-extraverted).
Because older adults frequently present with health problems, this may bias psychologists
in assessing the presence and extent of any mental health problems
(Grant, 1996; James & Haley, 1995). Grant suggests several ways that elements of
age bias (and healthism) among medical and psychological health care providers
can be changed. Professionals need to (a) continually assess their own attitudes
toward older people, (b) confront ageism and healthism where it arises, (c) institute
geriatrics programs in hospitals and mental health practices, and (d) integrate into
Ageism 213
their training a thorough knowledge of healthism and ageism, as well as become
well versed on what happens when humans age.
Elder Abuse
The negative attitudes that lead to ageist behavior also make it easier for the
perceiver to regard the welfare and humanity of older adults as less important
than that of younger adults. As such, ageism may indeed be a contributing factor
that leads some younger adults to neglect, exploit, or otherwise abuse older adults
(Quinn & Tomita, 1986). The maltreatment of older adults has become a serious,
increasingly common problem that has only recently (i.e., within the last 20 years)
received attention from researchers (Hirsch & Vollhardt, 2002). There are many
different ways older adults can be (and are) abused. This abuse can take the form
of neglect by the caregiver, outright violence, fraud, or exploitation. One reason
why this form of abuse is so often underreported is that physicians are not as well
acquainted with the problem as they are with other forms of domestic violence.
Jones, Veenstra, Seamon, and Krohmer (1997) conducted a survey of American
emergency room physicians and found that only 25% of the respondents had
training on elder abuse, while 63% had training on spouse abuse, and 87% had
training on child abuse. Another reason why the incidence elder abuse is often
underestimated is that elder victims of abuse are often afraid to disclose their
abuse for fear of retaliation by the abuser (Quinn & Tomita, 1986; Steinmetz,
1983). Abuse against elders is not just an American phenomenon. Researchers
have found dramatic increases of elder abuse in Puerto Rico (Sanchez, 1999) and
Japan (Tomita, 1999). In Japan in particular, the problem is vastly underreported in
large part because the culture leads elders to endure suffering in silence and elders
often are not aware that their maltreatment would be classified as abuse (Tomita,
1999). This growing problem, affecting so many older adults, needs much more
empirical attention directed toward a better understanding of the incidence rates,
the factors that give rise to the various forms of abuse, and prevention and treatment
models that effectively address the problem.
Theoretical Perspectives
Researchers have put forth several different views that could account for the
origin of ageism in a particular society. Two related approaches have received the
most attention, and these show much promise in understanding the genesis and
maintenance of age prejudice.
Functional Perspective
This approach holds that negative attitudes toward older adults serve an
ego-protective function for the stereotyping individual (Snyder & Meine, 1994).
214 Nelson
In other words, these stereotypes help younger persons deny the self-threatening
aspects of old age (e.g., that one will become frail, and die eventually). Edwards
and Wetzler (1998) found evidence to support this view. Their data showed that
when people encounter others who represent a threat to their self, their perceptions
of and behaviors toward the threatening person tend to be more negative. It may
be the case that by doing this, younger participants were able to reduce anxiety
associated with considering older people as a future ingroup.
Terror Management
Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon,
1986; Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991) suggests that culture and religion
are creations that impose order and meaning on the world, and this buffers
frightening thoughts of one’s own mortality and the seemingly chaotic nature of existence.
As we grow up, we learn that being good means being protected (parental
approval and protection). Therefore, self-esteem becomes an anxiety buffer in that
it helps people deny their mortality. Because older people tend to be associated
with death, younger persons may adopt ageist attitudes and behaviors to distance
themselves from older people. This may include blaming the older person for their
state (e.g., external indicators of aging). Doing this may allow the younger person
to deny the reality that they too will eventually become part of that outgroup. TMT
represents a fascinating and useful perspective on ageism, and much more research
is warranted on the application of this theory to our understanding of age prejudice
(Greenberg, Schimel, & Martens, 2002).
Organization of This Issue
This issue is divided into three sections. The first group of articles focuses on
factors that contribute to the origin and maintenance of age prejudice in society.
Section two highlights articles on the experience of ageism from the perspective
of elders who are targets of that prejudice. Finally, ageism is examined in a group
of theoretical articles.
Foundations of Ageism
The first article, by Martens, Goldenberg, and Greenberg (this issue), discusses
the fruitful application ofTerror Management Theory to understanding the origin of
age prejudice. Martens and his colleagues make a compelling argument (backed
by some data) that our thoughts of our own mortality spark feelings of intense
anxiety (tied to our fear of dying) and that we will try to distance ourselves from
anything (or any person/group) that reminds us of our mortality. In so doing, the
Ageism 215
young perceiver convinces him/her self that such a fate is not in his/her own future,
thus alleviating the anxiety.
The last major meta-analysis of attitudes toward older and younger adults
was published over 14 years ago (Kite & Johnson, 1988). Since then, the analysis
techniques and questions asked have grown more sophisticated. In the next article,
Kite, Stockdale, Whitley, and Johnson (this issue) describe the results of a new
meta-analysis, based on 232 studies, compared with Kite and Johnson’s 43 studies.
Also, Kite and her colleagues break this down further by examining separate components
of the attitude (evaluation, stereotype, competence). The results of their
meta-analysis suggest that, indeed, people evaluate older adults more negatively
than younger targets. Interestingly, Kite et al. found that older adults were more
ageist than younger people, and the data revealed a complex picture when the sex
of the target is evaluated, along with age. These results give researchers a much
clearer picture of the current state of our understanding of the attitudes younger
and older adults have about each age group.
Cuddy, Norton, and Fiske (this issue) discuss data bearing on their stereotype
content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). This model suggests that
people stereotype others along the dimensions of warmth and competence. Cuddy
and Fiske (2002) showed that older adults in the United States are perceived as
warm, but incompetent. In the present issue, Cuddy, Norton, and Fiske examine the
prevalence of that conceptualization with a cross-cultural sample of six countries.
Results confirm that the warm/incompetent stereotyped view is held quite universally,
showing no differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures.
Cuddy et al. also show that this stereotype results in random discrimination (older
persons are sometimes helped, sometimes neglected). Finally, Cuddy and her colleagues
discuss the results of two experiments designed to increase perceptions of
competence of older persons, showing that such manipulations were essentially
ineffective. Cuddy et al. suggest that the stereotype of older persons is stronger
than previously thought, and it poses a special challenge for researchers to further
explore the nature of this cross-cultural, stubbornly-held, negative attitude toward
older persons.With future studies such as this, we can come closer to finding ways
to reduce ageism.
Experiencing Ageism
Like most prejudice research, research on ageism has tended to focus on
understanding the factors that lead the perceiver to develop prejudiced attitudes
against older adults. This follows from the commonsense notion that if prejudice
is a problem that originates in the perceiver, then efforts to understand it and to
find a way to reduce or eliminate that prejudice ought to focus on the perceiver.
However, comparatively little attention has been devoted to understanding how the
targets of prejudice are affected by their stereotyped position. This skewed research
216 Nelson
emphasis is only recently changing (see Swim & Stangor’s [1998] excellent volume).
Researchers know very little about how older adults perceive ageism. Nussbaum
and his colleagues (this issue) discuss current theory and data on the significant
impact that ageist communication and ageist language have on the older
person, and the relationships the older individual has with others. Nussbaum et al.
also highlight how such ageism can have detrimental consequences for the older
person in his or her work setting. Despite the literature on the pernicious effects of
ageist language on the older person more attention needs to be brought to understanding
how ageism pervades the health care context. This article by Nussbaum
and his colleagues provides a much-needed focus on this issue, highlighting the
devastating consequences that ageist attitudes among health care workers can have
on the care of the older patient.
Researchers have documented the prevalence of ageism in television shows
(e.g., Bell, 1992), and because seniors tend to spend much of their leisure time
watching television (Davis&Davis, 1985), Donlon, Ashman, and Levy (this issue)
speculated that the more an older person is exposed to these negative portrayals
of elders, he/she will develop a more negative view of aging. Donlon et al. also
designed an intervention to encourage older adults to think critically about the
ageism present in each program they are watching. Older adults in the intervention
condition were less likely to “buy into” ageist views of themselves and other older
adults. Their results confirm their hypotheses, and highlight the importance of
such interventions in improving the quality of life of older adults.
An examination of how different age groups are perceived reveals that older
and younger people are perceived with more stereotypes and less power than
middle aged persons (Nelson, 2002b). In their article, Garstka, Hummert, and
Branscombe (this issue) hypothesized that the way each group cognitively frames
their competition for scarce economic resources may influence their perception of
age discrimination. In their experiment, Garstka et al. found that, indeed, different
ways of framing competition (in terms of economic status and legitimacy of that
status—fair or unfair) influence the way age discrimination is perceived. Specifically,
older and younger persons perceived more age discrimination against their
groups, than did middle-aged persons. Interestingly, when the economic advantage
of the middle-aged group was portrayed as illegitimate, middle-aged participants
perceived more age discrimination (against young and older persons). Garstka
et al. discuss how this may be a way for the middle aged group to minimize the
inequality between the groups.
Theoretical Perspectives
This final section takes a broader view of the issue of ageism, examining
problems in the way researchers have conceptualized age, and how they make
comparisons across categories (Bytheway, this issue), linkages between individual
Ageism 217
ageism and societal, institutionalized ageism (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, this issue),
and the apparent paradox between the fact that most older adults live happy, satisfying
lives, and the negative stereotypes about aging (Sneed & Whitbourne, this
issue).
The way that society carries certain expectations for behaviors for people of
various ages (sometimes called the “social clock” or “age grading”) is ageist in
that it segregates younger and older people into “us and them.” This argument,
by Hagestad and Uhlenberg, posits that the institutionalization of age grading is
so thorough that it permeates all aspects of culture and society, and this complete
separation of age groups provides fertile ground for the origin of ageism. The
authors, further, make a compelling case that micro-level instances of ageism
(prejudice against older individuals) lead to segregation and this leads to macrolevel
ageism on a societal level. What is needed, Hagestad and Uhlenberg argue,
in order to break this link is to understand the intermediate linkages at the “meso”
level. By exploring these links, their article advances our understanding of the
operation of ageism at these various levels.
In his article, Bytheway points out that our current conceptualization of ageism
is based on the assumption that age-specific categories exist. This assumption,
modeled upon ideas about sexism and racism (more categorizations), has had a
tremendous impact on gerontology, and on the way that researchers and policymakers
think about older adults. Bytheway presents a compelling argument (with
data) that suggests that researchers ought to adopt a different perspective, one
that doesn’t rely on simple age categories, but rather “age differentials” and each
person’s subjective experience of aging.
Sneed and Whitbourne make the case that previous models of lifespan development,
which tended to be goal-oriented, tend to reflect an ageist view of older
adults in that these models assume older adults are essentially unable to significantly
influence their environment. Sneed and Whitbourne argue that Whitbourne’s
Identity Process Theory is best suited to reflect the development of the individual
throughout his or her later life, and the authors present data to support this assertion.
Only by regarding development from a dynamic process model, incorporating
stability via identity assimilation and accommodation, can researchers best avoid
ageist stereotypes that are inherent in many of the previous (goal-oriented) models
of development.
In a final epilogue article, Giles and Reid (this issue) use the present collection
of articles to identify lacunae in the research literature, and they articulate useful
new directions for future research on ageism.
Conclusion
Our understanding of the far-reaching influence of age prejudice on the lives
of older adults is nascent, and much more empirical attention needs to be brought
218 Nelson
to bear on ageism. While it is beyond the scope of this issue to comprehensively
address the many complex factors the give rise to age prejudice (for reviews, see
Kite & Wagner, 2002; Nelson, 2002b; Palmore, 1999), the distinguished contributors
to this issue will highlight current research on prejudice against older adults,
and in doing so, they will help bring this important issue to the forefront of the research
agenda for social scientists. The U.S. Census Bureau (2000) estimates that
by the year 2030, the number of people over age 65 will double. Around the year
2009, the firstwave of the “baby boomer” demographic will hit retirement age, and
for the next 20 years thereafter, the United States will experience an unprecedented
shift in its population, in what some have termed the “graying of America.” As
the boomers become “senior citizens,” society must be prepared to accommodate
the enormous transformation of its complexion. Thus, the purpose of this issue is
to showcase our current understanding of the causes and consequences of ageism,
and to highlight the many more unanswered and important questions about ageism
that remain, so that social scientists can help shine much-needed light on this important
problem, which so dramatically affects everyone in society. In so doing, we
may help policy makers, legislators, health professionals, and society in general
become more sensitive to age prejudice, thereby enhancing the quality of life for
older adults.
References
Ansello, E. F. (1978). Age-ism: The subtle stereotype. Childhood Education, 54(3), 118–122.
Arluke, A., & Levin, J. (1984). Another stereotype: Old age as a second childhood. Aging, August–
September, 7–11.
Avorn, J., & Langer, E. (1982). Induced disability in nursing home patients: A controlled trial. Journal
of the American Geriatrics Society, 20, 297–300.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control
in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1,
pp. 3–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bell, J. (1992). In search of a discourse on aging: The elderly on television. The Gerontologist, 32,
305–311.
Branco, K. J., & Williamson, J. B. (1982). Stereotyping and the life cycle: Views of aging and the
aged. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping
(pp. 364–410). New York: Praeger.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer
(Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 65–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Butler, R. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9, 243–246.
Butler, R., Lewis, M., & Sunderland, T. (1991). Aging and mental health: Positive psychosocial and
biomedical approaches. New York: Macmillan.
Caporael, L. (1981). The paralanguage of caregiving: Baby talk to the institutionalized aged. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 876–884.
Caporael, L., & Culbertson, G. (1986). Verbal response modes of baby talk and other speech at institutions
for the aged. Language and Communication, 6, 99–112.
Caporael, L., Lukaszewski, M., & Culbertson, G. (1983). Secondary baby talk: Judgments by institutionalized
elderly and their caregivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
746–754.
Ageism 219
Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering, but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping
of older persons. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older
persons (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Davis, R. H.,&Davis, J. A. (1985). TV’s image of the elderly: A practical guide for change. Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath and Co.
Dovidio, J., & Gaertner, S. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. New York: Academic Press.
Dye, C. (1978). Psychologists’ role in the provision of mental health care for the elderly. Professional
Psychology, 9, 38–49.
Edwards, H., & Noller, P. (1993). Perceptions of overaccommodation used in nurses in communication
with the elderly. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 12(3), 207–223.
Edwards, K., & Wetzler, J. (1998). Too young to be old: The roles of self threat and psychological
distancing in social categorization of the elderly. Unpublished manuscript.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:
Competence andwarmth respectively followfrom status and competition. Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to
individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74).
New York: Academic Press.
Ford, C., & Sbordonne, R. (1980). Attitudes of psychiatrists toward elderly patients. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 137, 571–575.
Garfinkel, R. (1975). The reluctant therapist: 1975. The Gerontologist, 15, 136–137.
Gatz, M., & Pearson, C. (1988). Ageism revised and the provision of psychological services. American
Psychologist, 43(3), 184–188.
Gekoski, W., & Knox, V. (1990). Ageism or healthism? Perceptions based on age and health status.
Journal of Aging and Health, 2, 15–27.
Giles, H., Fox, S., Harwood, J., & Williams, A. (1994). Talking age and aging talk: Communicating
through the life span. In M. Hummert, J. Wiemann, & J. Nussbaum (Eds.), Interpersonal
communication in older adulthood: Interdisciplinary theory and research (pp. 130–161). New
York: Sage.
Giles, H., Fox, S., & Smith, E. (1993). Patronizing the elderly: Intergenerational evaluations. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 129–149.
Grainger, K., Atkinson, K., & Coupland, N. (1990). Responding to the elderly: Troubles-talk in the
caring context. In H. Giles, N. Coupland, & J.Weimann (Eds.), Communication health and the
elderly (pp. 192–212). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for
self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private
self (pp. 188–212). New York: Springer.
Greenberg, J., Schimel, J.,&Martens, A. (2002). Ageism: Denying the face of the future. In T. D. Nelson
(Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 27–48). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Grant, L. (1996). Effects of ageism on individual and health care providers’ responses to healthy aging.
Health and Social Work, 21, 9–15.
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J.W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S.Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook
of social cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 1–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harris, M., Moniz, A., Sowards, B.,&Krane, K. (1994). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects:
Expectancies about the elderly. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 36–48.
Hillerbrand, E., & Shaw, D. (1990). Age bias in a general hospital: Is there ageism in psychiatric
consultation? Clinical Gerontologist, 2(2), 3–13.
Hirsch, R. D., & Vollhardt, B. R. (2002). Elder maltreatment. In R. Jacoby & C. Oppenheimer (Eds.),
Psychiatry in the elderly (pp. 896–918). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ivey, D. C., Wieling, E., & Harris, S. M. (2000). Save the young—the elderly have lived their lives:
Ageism in marriage and family therapy. Family Process, 39(2), 163–175.
James, J., & Haley, W. (1995). Age and health bias in practicing clinical psychologists. Psychology
and Aging, 10(4), 610–616.
220 Nelson
Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, J. S., Veenstra, T. R., Seamon, J. P., & Krohmer, J. (1997). Elder mistreatment: National survey
of emergency physicians. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 473–479.
Kastenbaum, R. (1964). The reluctant therapist. In R. Kastenbaum (Ed.), New thoughts on old age
(pp. 139–145). New York: Springer.
Kemper, S. (1994). Elderspeak: Speech accommodations to older adults. Aging and Cognition, 1,
17–28.
Kite, M. E., & Johnson, B. T. (1988). Attitudes toward older and younger adults: A meta-analysis.
Psychology and Aging, 3(3), 233–244.
Kite, M. E., & Wagner, L. S. (2002). Attitudes toward older adults. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism:
Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 129–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levenson, A. J. (1981). Ageism:Amajor deterrent to the introduction of curricula in aging. Gerontology
and Geriatrics Education, 1, 161–162.
National Consumer’s League. (2004). New survey reveals consumers confused about, but overwhelmingly
use, anti aging products and procedures. http://www.nclnet.org/pressroom/antiaging.htm.
Nelson, T. D. (Ed.). (2002a). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older adults. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Nelson, T. D. (2002b). The psychology of prejudice. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Ng, S. H. (2002).Will families support their elders? Answers from across cultures. In T. Nelson (Ed.),
Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 295–309). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
O’Connor, B. P., & Rigby, H. (1996). Perceptions of baby talk, frequency of receiving baby talk,
and self-esteem among community and nursing home residents. Psychology and Aging, 11,
147–154.
Palmore, E. (1999). Ageism: Negative and positive (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Pasupathi, M., & Lockenhoff, C. (2002). Ageist behavior. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping
and prejudice against older persons (pp. 201–246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plous, S. (2002). Understanding prejudice and discrimination. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Quinn, M. J., & Tomita, S. K. (1986). Elder abuse and neglect: Causes, diagnosis, and intervention
strategies. New York: Springer.
Ray, D. C., Raciti, M. A., & Ford, C. V. (1985). Ageism in psychiatrists: Associations with gender,
certification, and theoretical orientation. The Gerontologist, 25(5), 496–500.
Reyes-Ortiz, C. (1997). Physicians must confront ageism. Academic Medicine, 72(10), 831.
Rodin, J., & Langer, E. (1980). The decline of control and the fall of self-esteem. Journal of Social
Issues, 36, 12–29.
Ryan, E. B., Hamilton, J. M., & See, S. K. (1994). Patronizing the old: How do younger and older
adults respond to baby talk in the nursing home? International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 39, 21–32.
Sanchez, C. D. (1999). Elder abuse in the Puerto Rican context. In T. Tatara (Ed.), Understanding
elder abuse in minority populations (pp. 93–105). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and
interpretations (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snyder, M., & Meine, P. (1994). Stereotyping of the elderly: A functional approach. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 33, 63–82.
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior:
The psychological functions of self-esteem and world-views. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 91–159). New York: Academic Press.
Stearns, P. J. (1986). Old age family conflict: The perspective of the past. In K. A. Pillemer & R.
S. Wolf (Eds.), Elder abuse: Conflict in the family (pp. 3–24). Dover, MA: Auburn House
Publishing.
Steinmetz, S. K. (1983). Dependency, stress, and violence between middle-aged caregivers and their
elderly parents. In J. I. Kosberg (Ed.), Abuse and maltreatment of the elderly: Causes and
interventions (pp. 134–149). Littleton, MA: Wright, PSG.
Swann, W. B., Langlois, J. H., & Gilbert, L. A. (Eds.). (1999). Sexism and stereotypes in modern
society. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ageism 221
Swim, J., & Stangor, C. (Eds.). (1998). Prejudice: The target’s perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Tomita, S. K. (1999). Exploration of elder mistreatment among the Japanese. In T. Tatara (Ed.), Understanding
elder abuse in minority populations (pp. 119–139). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Troll, L., & Schlossberg, N. (1971). How age-biased are college counselors? Industrial Gerontology,
10, 14–20.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). 1990 Census of population: General population characteristics. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Wilkinson, J. A., & Ferraro, K. F. (2002). Thirty years of ageism research. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.),
Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older adults (pp. 339–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
TODD D. NELSON is the Gemperle Foundation Distinguished Professor of Psychology
at California State University-Stanislaus. His research focuses on the
impact of ageism on older persons. Specifically, he is interested in understanding
and how age prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination at the individual and
societal level influence how older people feel about themselves and the future.

Get a 5 % discount on an order above $ 150
Use the following coupon code :
2018DISC
complex spatial organization of large cities, and urban development dynamics
purchasing and maintaining a computer

Category: essay

Our Services:
Order a customized paper today!