Synonyms

Age Bias; Age Prejudice; Ageism

Definition

Age discrimination refers to behaviors that unfairly discriminate against individuals and groups, either positively or negatively, on the basis of actual or perceived age, acting either implicitly or explicitly, and expressed at either the individual or institutional level. Age discrimination may thus be conceptualized as the behavioral component of the broader attitudinal variable that is ageism, whereas age prejudice represents the countervailing affective component.

Key Concepts and Components

The definition of age discrimination in this chapter incorporates five concepts, including the ways that the age construct may be operationalized, the valence of ageist outcomes, the target’s age, the ways by which ageist outcomes may be measured, and the level at which age discrimination may be expressed. These five concepts are summarized in Table 1 and further delineated by components.

Age Discrimination, Table 1 Key Concepts and Components
Full size table

Target Age

Although ageism and age discrimination most commonly concern the study of attitudes toward older adults, and possibly because of early focus on research in age discrimination to include only older adults, recent scholarship recognizes the notion that ageism may be directed toward any individual along the spectrum of age on the basis of actual or perceived age. Most comprehensively, research by Finkelstein et al. (2012) has documented type and prevalence of both positive and negative stereotypes and meta-stereotypes toward both younger and older adults.

Age Operationalization

Age may be either objective chronological age or subjective perceived age – the age that an individual, or others, view him or her to be (Kooij et al. 2008). Illustratively, some older individuals may appear younger than their age, and may therefore be subjectively perceived as younger than the typical individual in their age-group; vice versa for younger individuals who appear older than their age.

Outcome Valence

In line with evidence establishing older adults to fall into the incompetent but warm quadrant of the stereotype content model (Fiske et al. 2002), the definition recognizes that age discrimination may be either positive (benevolent ageism) or negative (hostile ageism).

Measurement

Explicit age discrimination refers to conscious and controllable behaviors elicited toward individuals on the basis of their age. In contrast, implicit age discrimination refers to such countervailing behaviors that exist and operate without conscious awareness, intention, or control (Levy and Banaji 2002). Whereas explicit age discrimination is most commonly measured through self-report or observation, implicit age discrimination may be measured via measures of implicit social cognition, such as the implicit-association test (IAT), or via stereotype priming (see Levy and Banaji (2002) for a review).

Level of Expression

Age discrimination may be expressed interindividually, by individual actors toward other individuals and acting on the basis of their actual or perceived age, or may be expressed at the broader institutional level, in terms of governmentally regulated social policy, normative social conventions within an industry or sector, or organizational practices (see Iversen et al. (2009) for a review). Illustratively, institutional age discrimination may include events such as governments denying scholarships for graduate education for individuals above a certain age, birthday cards poking fun at individuals on the basis of their age, or organizations denying promotions to individuals on the basis of their age.

History and Evolution of Definitions

Early research on age discrimination took place during the 1950s and focused exclusively on attitudes toward older adults (i.e., individuals advanced in chronological age). In what was perhaps the very earliest study of the phenomenon, Tuckman and Lorge (1952) examined age discrimination against older workers by graduate students. Other early researchers studying age as a facet of group identity in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s likewise followed suit and studied only older adults and workers. The term “ageism” was first introduced by Robert Butler to describe this topic of study in the mid-twentieth century (Butler 1969, 1975, 1980). Over two dozen formal definitions of ageism have since appeared in the extant literature. A comprehensive review of all definitions of ageism, excepting the newest definitions, such as those provided by Bal et al. (2011) and Posthuma et al. (2012), may be found in Iversen et al. (2009).

Target Age

Perhaps as a result of the early focus in the mid-twentieth century on exclusively older adults and workers, Butler’s (1975, 1980) definitions indicated ageism as applying only to “older adults” and the “elderly.” Surprisingly, Butler’s original 1969 definition recognized ageism as existing toward all age-groups, but his later definitions became, for no apparent reason, narrower. Concomitantly, conceptualizations of age discrimination have been mixed with regard to the operationalization of age, with some authors defining age discrimination as applying to both younger and older adults (e.g., Finkelstein et al. 2012) and some authors defining it as the exclusive province of older adults (e.g., Iversen et al. 2009; Posthuma et al. 2012).

To an extent, this inconsistency may reflect debate within the scientific community itself, with the result being that the question of whether age discrimination applies only to older adults, or to both younger and older adults, remains unsolved. The definition provided in this chapter argues for the latter, by specifying no particular age-group as being the sole target of age discrimination, for categorical membership is the immediate precursor of prejudice (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000), and because the category of age logically includes members within all categorical points.

Age Operationalization

All extant definitions of ageism and age discrimination, both the earliest and the latest, narrowly constrict age to only the realm of objective chronological age, either explicitly through reference only to chronological age or by way of omission with regard to perceived (subjective) age. This is an unfortunate omission, because chronological age fails to represent the life-span perspective on aging, which is better represented by other subjective facets of age, such as psychosocial or psychological age (see Kooij et al. (2008) for a review). Recent advances in the theory of aging have expanded the definition of age to include four subjective facets in addition to chronological age, including functional age (the extent to which chronological age limits the capabilities of any particular individual), psychosocial age (the age that one is socially perceived to be), organizational age (the extent to which an individual is considered old given the normative distribution of age in a particular institution), and life-span age (an individual’s current life stage or family cycle; Kooij et al. 2008).

All of these latter definitions of age may be conceptualized as subjective age, by way of reference to subjective perceptions regarding an individual or group’s physical capabilities, physical appearance and social conduct, normative age within an institution, or normative age within the life-span standards of a given society. It is thereby necessary to explicitly address the fact that age discrimination may occur on the basis of either actual (objective/chronological) or perceived (subjective) age. The definition provided in this chapter addresses this gap in the literature, by clearly defining age as being both objective and subjective.

Outcome Valence

Butler’s original definitions of ageism incorporated only negative attitudes on the basis of age. Most authors defining ageism in the 1980s and 1990s followed suit and discussed only negatively valenced outcomes, until the seminal work of Palmore (1999). On the basis that ageist attitudes could be either hostile or patronizing (benevolent ageism and age discrimination), Palmore (1999) first defined age discrimination as a phenomenon that could be either positively or negatively valenced. Following him, Cuddy and Fiske (2002) and Fiske et al. (2002) categorized older adults as falling into the incompetent but warm quadrant of the stereotype content model and similarly recognized the existence of both hostile and benevolent ageism. Thereby, most researchers studying ageism within the last decade (as of this writing) have recognized the existence of both positive and negative age discrimination. The current definition follows these recent advances in the study of ageism and recognizes that age discrimination may be valenced either positively or negatively.

Measurement

Almost all definitions of ageism and age discrimination are explicit; work on implicit ageism was largely lacking until the seminal work of Becca Levy, Mahzarin Banaji, and colleagues (cf., Levy and Banaji 2002). Nevertheless, some recent definitions of ageism have begun to recognize the role of unconscious and implicit attitudes in directing human behavior (e.g., Iversen et al. 2009). The definition provided in the current chapter follows these recent advances and defines age discrimination as occurring both implicitly and explicitly.

Level of Expression

Perhaps resultant of a lack of computer technology to statistically model multilevel relations between phenomena, early work on age discrimination focused only on the individual level of analysis and failed to incorporate the possibility of ageism occurring at the broader institutional level. More recently, beginning in the late 1990s, and carrying forward to the current decade, researchers have begun to largely recognize the existence of age discrimination at the institutional level. The current definition follows suit and expresses age discrimination as occurring at both the microlevel of the individual and at the broader level of societal, sectoral, industrial, and organizational institutions.

Nomological Net

A nomological net depicting the relations between age discrimination and its antecedents, consequences, moderators, and mediators is displayed in Fig. 1. The figure does not causally distinguish between age prejudice and age discrimination, as these latter components of the broader attitudinal variable that is ageism are commonly understood to occur together, with age prejudice representing emotive responses that go hand in hand with the countervailing behavioral responses that represent age discrimination.

Age Discrimination, Fig. 1
figure 12figure 12

Nomological net of age discrimination

Full size image

Antecedents

Prejudice begins with group membership, whereby membership in a devalued or out-group category gives rise to prejudice in the form of affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000). Categorical age membership, be it objective or subjective, is thereby understood to be the ultimate antecedent of age discrimination.

Mediators

Ageist cognitions, including age stereotypes and age meta-stereotypes, represent the mediating mechanisms between categorical age membership and age prejudice/discrimination. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that relative to their younger counterparts, older adults and workers are viewed more stereotypically in general and are stereotyped as being less competent, less motivated, less trusting, more vulnerable to work-family imbalance, having less potential for training and professional/career development, being less adaptable, less interpersonally skilled, less healthy, more reliable, and more stable (Bal et al. 2011; Gordon and Arvey 2004; Kite et al. 2005; Ng and Feldman 2012). The prime dimensions of stereotypes for older adults include perceived incompetence and perceived warmth (Fiske et al. 2002), and these two prime dimensions have been identified to significantly mediate relations between categorical age membership and age prejudice/discrimination (Krings et al. 2011). Less is known about age meta-stereotypes, but the interested reader is referred to Finkelstein et al. (2012) for a discussion.

Age Prejudice and Age Discrimination

For age prejudice, meta-analytic evidence indicates that relative to their younger counterparts, older adults and workers are evaluated as less attractive and are given more negative overall evaluations (Bal et al. 2011; Gordon and Arvey 2004; Kite et al. 2005). For age discrimination, meta-analytic evidence indicates that relative to their younger counterparts, older adults and workers are more likely to be recommended professional evaluation after experiencing memory failure, are less likely to be helped, are given poorer assessments based on observed interactions, experience more adverse selection outcomes, and are given poorer performance evaluations (Bal et al. 2011; Kite et al. 2005). Less is known about age prejudice and age discrimination specifically targeted toward younger adults and workers, indicating the need for future research to investigate ageism at the lower end of the age spectrum. Less is also known about age prejudice and age discrimination based upon purely subjective age. For example, would an older adult who looks young experience similar outcomes related to age prejudice/discrimination? Future research is needed to disentangle the effects of objective vs. subjective age on ageism.

Outcomes of Age Discrimination

Individuals who are the targets of age discrimination experience detrimental affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes (Marcus and Fritzsche 2015). These may include, but not be limited to, lowered life and job satisfaction, less positive and more negative affect, higher turnover, reduced job and organizational commitment, lower self-esteem and self-efficacy, greater incidence of job burnout, reduced well-being, reduced standards of living, limitations in career advancement, lower income, limitations in personal and professional development, isolation, and poorer mental health. At the institutional level, age discrimination may result in the economic and social marginalization of age-stigmatized groups.

Individual Difference Moderators

Individual differences include surface-level moderators and deep-level moderators. Surface-level moderators include all demographic variables, including sex, gender, tribe (defined as those groupings of individuals based upon communal affiliation, such as race, religion, and ethnicity; Marcus and Fritzsche 2015), education, marital status, socioeconomic status, and disability status. Additionally, subjective age may also be conceptualized as a moderator of relations between objective age and outcomes. Deep-level moderators include all psychological variables, such as affectivity, attitudes, cultural orientation, and personality. As depicted, individual differences may moderate relations between age and ageist stereotypes (“upstream moderators”), ageist stereotypes and age prejudice/discrimination (“downstream moderators”; Posthuma et al. 2012), or age prejudice/discrimination and outcomes of ageism.

Very little is known about the confluence of age and other surface- or deep-level moderator variables in predicting outcomes; the study of age discrimination sorely needs research on disentangling complex relationships, interactive effects, and effects of multiple group memberships (Posthuma and Campion 2009). To that end, recent theoretical advances identify the existence of unique archetypes for different types of older adults and workers (e.g., older White females vs. older White males) and specify differing patterns of outcomes for older adults and workers depending upon multiple group memberships (Marcus and Fritzsche 2015).

Environmental Difference Moderators

As depicted, environmental differences may also moderate relations between age and ageist stereotypes (“upstream moderators”), ageist stereotypes and age prejudice/discrimination (“downstream moderators”; Posthuma et al. 2012), or age prejudice/discrimination and outcomes of ageism. Environmental differences may be broadly divided into three classes of moderators: moderators stemming from differences in sampling, design, measurement, and analysis (methodological), moderators stemming from the larger study context (contextual), and moderators stemming from overarching societal cultures and institutional policies (societal).

Meta-analytic evidence is plentiful when it comes to methodological moderators. The largest effect sizes of age discrimination are observed when ratings are provided by middle-aged respondents, older women rather than older men are targets, job applicants rather than job incumbents are targets, within-subject designs are utilized, negative information is presented, potential for development ratings is considered, lab rather than field studies are conducted, minimal information is presented, and the overall generalizability of the data decreases (Bal et al. 2011; Gordon and Arvey 2004; Kite et al. 2005).

The prime contextual moderator variable in relations between age and outcomes has been identified to be contextual age salience. In terms of older workers, contextual age salience includes the extent to which the current job matches one’s prior work experiences, the age type of the job, the level of the job, and the normative age distribution in the job (Marcus and Fritzsche 2015). The role of context remains an emerging area of research on age discrimination – although well-grounded theory exists, there is not much empirical evidence on the issue, indicating the need for future research.

The least amount of theory and evidence exists for societal moderators. Very little is known about the ways by which national culture moderates the relations between age and age discrimination (Posthuma and Campion 2009). Likewise, very little is known about the moderating role of broader institutional-level policies on relations between age and institutional level outcomes. Hence, future research examining the roles of societal culture and other macrolevel variables on relations between age and outcomes would benefit the study of age discrimination.

Conclusion

It has been almost half a century since Robert Butler first coined the term “ageism.” On the positive side, consensus now exists on the notion that age discrimination refers to the behavioral component of the broader attitudinal variable that is ageism, with ageist stereotypes and age prejudice representing the accompanying cognitive and affective components, respectively (Bal et al. 2011). Yet, half a century on, debate still seems to persist within the scientific community regarding the exact nature of the concept of age discrimination itself, with no consistency found in specifications regarding its valence, measurement, level of expression, potential targets of ageism, and even the nature of age as a construct itself. The definition provided in this chapter addresses this issue and represents the most comprehensive definition of age discrimination within the extant literature, incorporating all of the key concepts and components. Such a definition is arguably needed in order to expand the study of age discrimination to individuals of varying stripes and across the life cycle and to gain a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon as it occurs across methods, contexts, and cultures.

Poorer still is our understanding regarding the mediating processes and boundary conditions of age discrimination. Little research on age discrimination has been done to investigate mediating age-stereotype processes (see Krings et al. (2011) for initial evidence); no research has been conducted to investigate mediating age–meta-stereotypes processes; no research has investigated more complex mediating relationships such as mediated moderation or moderated mediation. Despite a wealth of meta-analytic evidence, concomitantly little research has investigated the moderating roles of either individual or environmental differences, with all meta-analyses to date on the issue largely focusing on methodological variables and ignoring broader societal or contextual variables. To an extent, this may reflect a lack of primary studies on interactive relations between variables within the nomological net of age discrimination.

Summarily, primary and secondary research is pressingly needed in order to advance the study of age discrimination beyond crude main effects at the individual level and that are largely obtained via self-report. It is the hope here that explication of these and other related issues within this chapter, via clarification of the definition of the term and its accompanying nomological net, will help push the study of age discrimination forward and into a less obfuscated tomorrow.

Cross-References