INTERGENERATIONAL CONTACT & AGEISM
Aging is a lifelong process that is influenced by our biology, our social worlds, as well as physical environments. Although a universal part of lifespan development, aging is not a homogenous experience. How we think about aging, our aging experiences, and the social context of aging influences our lives and well-being. Age is one of the social categories that we first notice about other individuals. Unfortunately, ageism (prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination directed toward people on the basis of their age) is pervasive. Around the world, ageism is widespread in institutions, laws, and polices. In their extensive Global Report on Ageism, the World Health Organization (WHO), elucidates how ageism is “prevalent, ubiquitous and insidious because it goes largely unrecognised and unchallenged” (pg ix).
Intergenerational Contact
An abundance of research demonstrates the link between ageism and a lack of intergenerational connections and relationships. In the U.S. and around the world, there is a lack of positive intergenerational contact between older and younger adults due to anticipated negative interactions, age-segregated housing, or infrequent contact which may reduce chances for positive interactions. One way of facilitating connection and community are intergenerational programs and creating places for intergenerational connection. Drawing upon the prejudice reduction literature, intergroup contact (contact between different groups), represents a promising way to reduce ageism.
One of the most promising ways to reduce ageism is by facilitating intergenerational contact between younger and older adults. The PEACE (Positive Education about Aging and Contact Experiences) model addresses two key factors to reduce ageism: education about aging and positive intergenerational contact. Ideally conditions of intergenerational contact should include, 1) one-to-one contact, 2) that is cooperative, 3) involves sharing of personal information (e.g., life events), 4) that overall fosters equal status within the contact situation and 5) is supported by any real or perceived authorities in the situation (Levy, 2018).
Aging and Ageism
In terms of age identity, society often frames "young" and "old" as two distinct and separate states of being. Young people are stereotyped using both negative and positive traits: they may be seen as entitled but also full of energy. Conversely, older people are viewed with their own set of negative and positive traits: they may be seen as dependent and burdensome, but also warm and wise. Being young or old are neither good nor bad states of being, they are part of the lifespan that evoke a wide range of possibilities and experiences (Gendron, 2022). As such, the use of the term older adult or young adult is by itself, not very useful.
The experience of aging is often flattened to refer solely to the experience of growing old, as opposed to an ongoing and ever-present part of existence and life. This simplistic view of aging results in a narrowing of our collective understanding of what it means to age throughout the lifespan and the variance of experiences and realities for individual as they aging. Ageism is not new, but research does suggest that it is increasing. Ageism can be fueled by intergenerational tensions and heightened in the times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Ayalon, 2020; Fraser et al., 2020; Levy et al., 2022; Monahan et al., 2020; Ng et al., 2021; WHO, 2021).
Like other attitudes, ageism, includes an affective component (e.g., disliking a group), a behavioral component (e.g., avoiding contact with a group), and a cognitive component (e.g., associating attributes such as personality and morality traits) with a group (Levy et al., 2022). Ageism is complex and multifaced, it can be internalized, interpersonal, and institutional (WHO, 2021). On the societal level, ageism is widespread in institutions, laws, and polices. Ageism has devastating and widespread consequences for individuals and society as a whole. Past research illustrates the negative impacts ageism has on physical and mental health as well as general well-being for persons of all ages (Chang et al., 2020; Levy et al., 2020; Levy et al., 2022). For example, negative age stereotypes can pose serious health risks, with research finding that internalizing negative age stereotypes is associated with reductions in longevity by up to 7.5 years (Levy et al., 2002). As a result, reducing ageism is of the utmost importance for our individual and societal health and well-being (APA, 2020; Nelson, 2016).
Outcomes
Strong evidence that education and intergenerational contact are important for reducing ageism comes from two recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews (Apriceno & Levy, 2023; Burnes et al., 2019). Three ageism reduction intervention types (education, intergenerational contact, and a combination of education and intergenerational contact) were examined in the systematic review and meta-analysis by Burnes and colleagues (2019). Among 63 eligible studies with a total of 6,124 participants conducted between the years of 1976-2018, ageism interventions had a significant effect on attitudes, knowledge, and comfort with older individuals.
More recently, Apriceno and Levy’s (2023) systematic review and meta-analyses included both within (n = 74) and between-subjects (n = 78) designs over a 45 year span, in 11 countries, with participants ranging in age from 3-45 years old. Both within and between-subjects studies that contained both education about aging and positive intergenerational contact reduced ageist attitudes and increased aging knowledge.
Decades of research have found that intergenerational contact is associated with reductions in ageism (Apriceno & Levy, 2023; Burnes et al., 2019), in accordance with the tenets of intergroup contact theory. A lack of positive interactions between individuals of different ages is associated with more negative attitudes and endorsement of age-related stereotypes (Lytle & Levy, 2022). On the contrary, in communities where people of different ages interact on a regular basis (e.g., religious communities), ageism tends to be minimal (Evans, 2011).
Intergenerational contact interventions are often conducted by academics and non-profits interested in reducing ageism and facilitating positive contact between individuals of different ages. Many of these interventions are supported by funding from private foundations, non-profits (e.g., Generations United), and government agencies (e.g., National Institute of Aging). As the recognition for the importance of intergenerational contact programs has grown, so too have funding opportunities to measure the efficacy of said research and programs. For example, around the world, many governments and local sources of funding have supported intergenerational contact interventions in countries such as Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Israel, Italy, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Scotland, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States (Apriceno & Levy, 2023; Canedo-Garcia et al. 2017).