IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v74y2019i4p595-599..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Ageism Acceptable When it Comes From a Familiar Partner?

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle HorhotaPhD
  • Alison L ChasteenPhD
  • Jessica J Crumley-BranyonMS

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study investigated the perceived acceptability of benevolent and hostile ageist behaviors targeting older adults and whether the acceptability varied depending on the age of the perceiver and the relationship between the person engaging in the ageist behavior and the recipient of the ageist behavior.MethodYoung, middle-aged, and older adult participants rated the acceptability of 13 benevolent and 17 hostile ageist behaviors targeting older adults for five different relationship types: younger family members, same-age family members, familiar service workers, unfamiliar service workers, and friends.ResultsParticipants, regardless of age, rated benevolent ageism to be more acceptable than hostile ageism. Young adults were more accepting of hostile ageist acts than middle-aged and older adults were. However, overall acceptability of hostile ageist acts was low. Familiarity with the perpetrator also affected perceptions of the acceptability of ageist acts.DiscussionPerceptions of the acceptability of ageism targeting older adults differed as a function of participant age, ageism type, and relationship type. Findings are discussed in light of social identity theory and intergroup contact theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle HorhotaPhD & Alison L ChasteenPhD & Jessica J Crumley-BranyonMS, 2019. "Is Ageism Acceptable When it Comes From a Familiar Partner?," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 74(4), pages 595-599.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:74:y:2019:i:4:p:595-599.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gby066
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:74:y:2019:i:4:p:595-599.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.