Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 26, 2026.

Determinants of Ageism against Older Adults: A Systematic Review

Sibila Marques, João Mariano, Joana Mendonça and 5 more

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2020 · Systematic review · CC BY

doi:10.3390/ijerph17072560

Abstract

Ageism is a widespread phenomenon and constitutes a significant threat to older people’s well-being. Identifying the factors contributing to ageism is critical to inform policies that minimise its societal impact. In this systematic review, we gathered and summarised empirical studies exploring the key determinants of ageism against older people for a period of over forty years (1970–2017). A comprehensive search using fourteen databases identified all published records related to the umbrella concept of “ageism”. Reviewers independently screened the final pool to identify all papers focusing on determinants, according to a predefined list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. All relevant information was extracted and summarised following a narrative synthesis approach. A total of 199 papers were included in this review. We identified a total of 14 determinants as robustly associated with ageism. Of these, 13 have an effect on other-directed ageism, and one on self-directed ageism. The quality of contact with older people and the positive or negative presentation of older people to others emerged as the most robust determinants of other-directed ageism; self-directed ageism is mostly determined by older adults’ health status. Given the correlational nature of most studies included in this review, inferences on causality should be made cautiously.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 26, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

The global population is ageing, and the number of people aged 60 or older is expected to more than double by 2050. In this demographic scenario, maintaining adequate levels of well-being and health in older people is of crucial importance. Ageism against older people has been widely recognised as a major threat to active ageing and an important public health issue. Several studies have shown that ageistic attitudes, and in particular ageistic stereotypes, have negative impacts on older people in many different domains. In this regard, this work has shown that these negative stereotypes about ageing are acquired at a very early age and tend to act as self-fulfilling prophecies in old age, leading to poor outcomes for older people in many different areas such as memory and cognitive performance, health, work performance and even their will-to-live. In addition to this potential negative impact on the individual level, a recent study has also shown that ageism holds important financial costs.

Ageism is a multifaceted concept including three distinct dimensions: a cognitive (e.g., stereotypes), an affective (e.g., prejudice) and a behavioural dimension (e.g., discrimination). Ageism can operate both consciously (explicitly) and unconsciously (implicitly), and it can be expressed at three different levels: micro-level (individual), meso-level (social networks) and macro-level (institutional and cultural). Furthermore, ageism has two distinct targets: On the one hand, ageism can be directed at other individuals—“other-directed ageism”—such as when we think that other older people are slow or wise. On the other hand, ageism can be directed towards oneself—“self-directed ageism” (e.g., I have negative feelings regarding my own ageing).

Ageism is a highly prevalent and widespread phenomenon across many cultures. Data from the World Values Survey, including 57 countries, showed that 60% of the respondents reported that older people do not receive the respect they deserve. Across regions, increases in the percentage of older people significantly predicted negative attitudes towards older people. Current trends in global population ageing combined with the absence of directed policies to efficiently address this issue are likely to promote an increase in ageism prevalence over the next decades.

Intervening to reduce ageism and mitigate its harmful impact implies at least some degree of knowledge on the factors contributing or determining its genesis and persistence in our societies. Some theoretical explanations have been put forward by scholars to account for the emergence of negative attitudes toward older people at both societal (e.g., modern societies tend to devalue their older citizens in the sense that they may be perceived as not contributing anymore to the economy) and individual levels (e.g., terror management theory postulates that negative attitudes toward older persons and the ageing process are derived from the fear about our own mortality)). Building on these ideas, empirical studies have started to try to identify factors that may contribute to or modulate ageism in different cultural contexts over the last decades. Nevertheless, while evidence has started to emerge, we are still lacking an integrated source of knowledge that allows us to set this research in context and identify which of the factors already explored seem to be more robustly associated with ageism. Thus, we aimed to systematically gather and analyse all available evidence exploring and testing potential explanatory factors for ageism against older people.

To our very best knowledge, current reviews available on the determinants of ageism tend to focus on specific factors and levels of analysis (e.g., cultural context, age of the person being evaluated) or follow a literature/critical review format, with no reference to systematic procedures for literature search and analyses (e.g., PRISMA guidelines). Hence, the present work offers a unique contribution to the field by providing a search, using predefined criteria, of the relevant literature in this area for a vast period of time and offering a synthesis of the main determinants affecting ageism. By giving a comprehensive overview of the main roots of ageism, the paper will allow future research to build on it by, for example, exploring the found determinants in more detail or by closing identified gaps in the literature. In addition, it will be a starting point for policy makers and practitioners (e.g., politicians, employers, teachers) to develop measures to tackle ageism at its roots.

The choice for a systematic review instead of other related methods (such as, a scoping review) was made considering the need to conduct a thorough analysis using clear criteria for paper inclusion and effect evaluation, and to include aspects related to the quality assessment of each study under consideration. In particular, factors such as the design of the studies and sample characteristics seemed fundamental to better explore the causal nature of each determinant and the generalizability of the results obtained.

Following previous studies aiming to explore determinants in other fields (e.g.,), we adopted a socio-ecological perspective using a multi-level framework. This multi-level framework highlights the relevance of both social and environmental factors in shaping human behaviour. More specifically, the following three levels of influence were considered within this framework: intrapersonal, interpersonal/intergroup and institutional/cultural.

Ultimately, we hope the findings from this systematic review may help to inform the development and expansion of intervention programs aimed at tackling ageism, including the Global Campaign to Combat Ageism that is being led by the World Health Organization (WHO). In addition, we also aimed to identify and discuss specific research gaps in the determinants of ageism literature where further studies may be beneficial.

2.1. Literature Search and Eligibility Criteria

A protocol was prospectively developed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews (see The PRISMA checklist in the Supplementary Materials Table S9). Following current recommendations, the protocol was made openly available through registration with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews platform (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, reference CRD42018089760).

Included studies had the following characteristics: (i) Studies focusing on ageism towards older adults; (ii) Studies aiming to explore determinants of ageism. As determinants, we considered factors that may explain the origins, roots or possible causes of ageism; (iii) Studies using an ageism measure as the dependent variable; (iv) Quantitative studies; v) Since the term “ageism” was only introduced in 1969, only studies dated from 1970 onwards were included; (vi) Full text available in English, French, or Spanish. A detailed list of all inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in Supplementary Table S1.

Specifically, we included studies in which the targets of ageism were 50 years or older. This threshold also allowed us to cover ageism in the labour market, an important area of ageism research, with older workers commonly defined as those aged 50 or older (e.g., Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD,, and to include studies based on data from ageing surveys, which usually encompass samples of individuals aged 50 or older (e.g., the Health and Retirement Study [HRS] and the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe [SHARE]).

Although our initial protocol included an integrated analysis of both quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies, in this review, we decided to focus on findings from quantitative studies. We identified a high number of quantitative (n = 199) and qualitative/mixed methods (n = 90) papers on this topic. Given the high number of quantitative articles identified, the very clear evaluation criteria quantitative studies have to determine whether or not an effect exists, and the extra complexity that would result from including qualitative evidence in the narrative synthesis, we follow the procedure used in other similar studies and only analyse the quantitative evidence at this stage as it represents the majority of the findings of this field, while keeping the number of studies reviewed within a reasonable range. Although we acknowledge this is a limitation regarding our initial goal, these results are still based on a large sample of studies in this area (n = 199) and we believe that they yield meaningful conclusions for research and intervention in this domain. We address this issue in further detail in the discussion section.

2.2. Search Strategy and Study Selection

The following electronic databases, including both academic and grey literature, were searched up to 14/12/2017: PubMed, PsycINFO, Ageline, EBSCO, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, DARE, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Collaboration, Prospero, Greylit and Opengrey. A comprehensive search strategy looking at the big umbrella concept of “ageism” was developed for PubMed and then subsequently adapted for the other databases included in the study, as per each database specific thesaurus. The full search string for PubMed can be found in Supplementary Table S2.

Irrelevant and duplicate studies were initially removed following a two-step process. First, we used a comprehensive deduplication methodology as per by Bramer et al.. Then, the remaining records were imported into COVIDENCE (www.covidence.org), a web-based tool designed to assist the systematic review process, in order to remove additional duplicates and irrelevant records (e.g., articles related to forest “age discrimination” or degenerative diseases related to ageing). Before initiating our screening process, we first piloted our inclusion and exclusion criteria in a sub-sample of 10 references. This pilot was carried out by two independent reviewers (LN, SM). For each of the remaining 13,691 references, title and abstract were independently screened for eligibility by pairs of reviewers selected out of six reviewers (JMa, JMe, LN, MH, SM, WT). Reviewers were randomly assigned to each reference by COVIDENCE (percentage of inter-rater agreement during this process: 92.45%). Disagreements were resolved with the intervention of an additional third randomly assigned reviewer (LN or SM). After this first screening, we identified 647 potentially eligible full texts and uploaded them into COVIDENCE. When full texts could not be found, authors were contacted to provide a copy of the full manuscript (JMe). In the next step, all potentially eligible full texts were examined in detail for eligibility by pairs of reviewers selected out of six reviewers (JMa, JMe, LN, MH, SM, WT). Reviewers were randomly assigned to each reference by COVIDENCE (percentage of inter-rater agreement during this process: 77.55%). Reasons for exclusion were annotated, disagreements resolved with the intervention of a third reviewer (JMa or SM).

To minimise searching bias, we complemented this approach with a snowball procedure, where we screened all existing reviews/meta-analyses and all references cited in the records we retained after our full eligibility screening. This procedure resulted in the identification of 25 additional relevant records. Figure 1 provides an overview of our search and selection procedures.

2.3. Quality Assessment

Given our focus on quantitative studies, we decided to revisit the quality assessment tool initially proposed in our protocol (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, reference CRD42018089760), to be more suitable to the specificities of the type of studies we summarise herein. Each study was then appraised for quality, as per a customised quality assessment tool we developed based on previously validated instruments, namely the Downs and Black checklist and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. This tool was first piloted in a subset of 10 references (LN, SM), and adjustments were made as necessary. Following the procedure adopted by other authors, we decided to use a customised appraisal tool to make sure we could capture specific aspects of the methodologies used in this field that, while important, could not be easily captured by a general-purpose instrument. For our purposes, we considered that aspects related with testing of causality and psychometric qualities of the measures used were important, but we could not find any existing measure specifically accounting for these two dimensions together. Moreover, we needed a measure that would consider the heterogeneity in the designs of the studies we reviewed and could be used across a large number of studies. The final version of the tool comprised 11 items addressing the aims and hypotheses of each study, power analysis, participants’ eligibility, description of the methods, adequacy of the methods, testing of causality, psychometric properties of the measures used, ethical considerations, statistical analysis, significance levels and effect sizes. The quality of each of our final list of eligible references was independently assessed by pairs of reviewers randomly selected out of a pool of six reviewers (JMa, JMe, LN, MH, SM, WT), using a three-point scale depending on the level of compliance with each criterion (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high). A global percentage of quality was calculated by dividing the total sum score obtained across items by the total possible score. Percentages of quality were averaged across the two raters to achieve a final quality score. Each study was categorised according to its quality, based on the following criteria: low: <60%, medium: 60–80%, high: >80%. No study was discarded due to poor quality.

2.4.1. Extraction

The data extraction form was piloted together with the quality assessment tool (LN, SM) and adjustments were made as necessary. The final extraction form included entries on: publication details (e.g., year, country, format), research method (e.g., participants, design, procedure), ageism outcome (e.g., definition, measure, classification), and determinants explored (e.g., definition, measure, effect significance and direction). For each included reference, one reviewer extracted all relevant data for all entries in the form. Following current gold-standard procedures for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a second reviewer independently extracted critical information for entries related to determinants and confirmed the data extracted by the first reviewer. Disagreements and inconsistencies were resolved with the intervention of a third reviewer (FP or SM).

2.4.2. Synthesis

Given the wide-range and high heterogeneity of the studies included in this systematic review, we summarised our findings using a narrative synthesis procedure. Taking into consideration the different levels where ageism takes expression and following similar endeavours in other fields, we categorised each determinant according to a multi-level framework where we considered individual, interpersonal/intergroup and institutional/cultural levels of expression.

In our main synthesis analysis, only determinants studied in at least three papers were taken into account (see Supplementary Material Tables S4 and S6 for the complete list of determinants considered in more than three papers; for determinants considered in less than three papers, see Tables S5 and S7 of the Supplementary Materials). For each determinant, papers were organised in one of three categories: finds a positive effect; finds a negative effect; and non-significant/mixed association (ns/mix) with ageism. The latter includes studies finding no significant relationship (significance threshold of p < 0.05), and studies analysing multiple dependent variables as aspects of ageism, for which the effects of the determinant were not consistent across dependent variables. This procedure has been adapted from previous studies exploring determinants using a multiple levels of analysis approach, such as the one we used herein. Following previous studies, we considered a determinant to be robust if at least 60% of the studies where the determinant was examined agree on both the existence and the direction of the effect of the determinant.

3. Results

A total of 199 papers were included in this review. Most papers collected samples from western countries, particularly from the United States of America (n = 119; 59.80%), and more than two in five papers were published since 2010 (n = 85; 42.71%) (see Figure 2 for a visual representation of the main distribution of studies per country, and for more detailed information see Table S3 in the Supplementary Materials).

For most studies, more than half of participants were female (n = 121; 60.80%) and included participants under 50 years of age (n = 105; 52.76%) or both below and over 50 years old (n = 65; 32.66%) (Table 1). Most studies were cross-sectional (n = 123; 61.81%) and measured at least the cognitive dimension of ageism (n = 185; 92.96%) and the majority in an explicit manner (n = 192; 96.48%) (a complete overview of measures of ageism used is presented in Supplementary Materials Table S3).

Eighty-eight studies scored “High”, 107 studies scored “Medium” and four studies scored “Low” in our quality assessment analyses. An overview of each study’s compliance with our criteria is presented in Figure S1 in the Supplementary Materials. A score on the quality of evidence per study is presented in Table S8 in the Supplementary Materials. The main strengths of the studies included were the clear description of aims and study procedures, methodological and statistical approaches and the high psychometric quality of the measures included. Studies were limited in relation to the possibility of testing for causal relationships, in including a priori calculation sample sizes and in the lack of clarity and/or detail in describing ethical procedures or the eligibility criteria for participants.

The large majority of the studies included in this review examined other-directed ageism, meaning stereotyping of, prejudice against or discrimination of other individuals based on their age (n = 179; 89.95%). Only a small number of studies focused on self-directed ageism (n = 11; 5.53%) or ageism directed at both other and self (n = 9; 4.52%). Determinants contributing to both other and self-directed ageism were included both in the other and the self-directed ageism analyses.

3.1. Other-Directed Determinants of Ageism

We identified a total of 31 determinants that were examined in at least three articles regarding other-directed ageism, including 20 at the individual level, nine at interpersonal/intergroup level, and two at institutional/cultural level (Table 2). We present below a detailed description of the determinants found for each of our levels of analysis in separate sub-sections.

3.1.1. Intrapersonal Level Determinants

Some of the most solid findings regarding intrapersonal-level determinants of other-directed ageism concern behavioural and psychological factors. Eight out of nine papers found that “anxiety of ageing” increases ageism in the individual, and seven out of nine papers also found a positive association with “fear of death”. Personality traits such as consciousness (two out of three), agreeableness (three out of three), extraversion (two out of three) and having a collectivistic orientation (two papers) were found to be associated with a decrease in other-directed ageism.

Age (81 papers) and sex (67 papers) of the respondents were the two individual-level determinants most commonly explored in the papers included in this review. However, the majority of studies did not find a (consistent) age or sex effect. The evidence is inconclusive about the effects of other sociodemographic characteristics, including years of education (24 papers), cultural background (18 papers), ethnicity (13 papers), socio-economic status (six papers), religiosity (five papers), living in an urban versus rural area (five papers) and marital status (three papers). Studies were also inconclusive regarding the effects of health status (six papers) and of activity-related determinants (six papers on professional experience and seven on studying ageing and care-related topics).

3.1.2. Interpersonal/Intergroup Level Determinants

The evidence is inconclusive about whether the frequency of contact between younger and older individuals reduces ageism on the subject (29 papers). However, 10 out of 13 papers found that the quality of this contact does reduce the prevalence of ageism. When asked specifically about contact with grandparents, results follow a similar pattern: whereas 7 out of 10 papers show a robust association of the quality of contact with grandparents with ageism, the results are mixed regarding the effect of quantity of contact with grandparents (10 out of 18 papers). The characteristics of older targets presented in the studies also seem to matter. Whereas studies are inconclusive about whether female targets are more likely to be targets of higher ageism (21 studies), 17 out of 27 papers did find that stereotypes are more likely to emerge if the age of the target is higher. Furthermore, the frame under which the older individual is presented seems highly relevant: all 13 papers in which the older target was presented in a positive way found that this positive presentation reduced ageism, whereas 13 out of 14 papers where the target was presented in a negative way found that this presentation amplified ageism. In relation to activity—including respondents’ experience of caregiving or working with older people—there were mixed findings (four out of eight papers).

3.1.3. Institutional/Cultural Level Determinants

Only a few studies examined determinants of ageism at this level. We found only two robust determinants at this level: available societal economic resources (three out of five papers) and percentage of older people in the country (two out of three papers).

3.2. Other-Directed Determinants of Ageism: Differences by Participants Age Group

A sub-group analysis considering only the robust “other-directed” determinants of ageism by age group highlighted that a much higher number of articles relied on younger participants (n = 104) than on older participants (n = 36) (Table 3). The pattern of results for younger participants follows, in general, the one identified for the whole sample of studies. However, in the case of older participants, only few determinants were identified as being robustly associated with ageism. These determinants generally followed the same direction identified in the analysis including the whole sample of studies and were: anxiety about ageing (three out of three papers), fear and salience of death (four out of four papers), target’s age (seven out of 10 papers), older persons presented negatively (three out of three papers), older persons presented positively (three out of three papers) and available economic resources (two out of three papers). The remaining determinants did not reach our threshold for being considered in the analyses (in the sense that there are less than three papers exploring that specific determinant for this age group). It is important to highlight that some papers did not provide a complete description of the sampling procedure or did not involve the contribution of human participants (e.g., analyses of content in the media). Therefore, these cases were not considered in this further analysis (e.g., the study by Ng et al. explores the percentage of older persons in the country considering a method of computational linguistic analysis to the corpus of Historical American English).

3.3. Self-Directed Forms of Ageism

Table 4 shows the nine determinants we identified as being explored in at least three articles regarding self-directed forms of ageism. Similarly to what happened for other-directed ageism, most intrapersonal-level determinants examined showed no relevant association. The only exception was mental and physical health status (eight out of nine papers), which was found to be associated with lower levels of self-directed ageism. It is interesting to note that this determinant was not a significant predictor of other-directed forms of ageism.

Finally, no robust determinants of self-directed ageism were found at the interpersonal/intergroup and institutional/cultural levels of analysis.

Figure 3 presents a visual representation of the main determinants of ageism identified in this review (other and self-directed) at the intrapersonal, interpersonal/intergroup and institutional levels.

4. Discussion

In this manuscript, we present the results of the first systematic overview on determinants of ageism against older people. We mapped and summarised evidence exploring determinants of ageism against older people in virtually all quantitative studies conducted for over a forty-year period. We identified which of the determinants explored present a more robust association with ageism and, therefore, should constitute priorities in policies of interventions aiming to fight ageism against older people. We categorised all determinants we found to be robustly associated with ageism using a multi-level framework, which considered sources of influence from individual, interpersonal/intergroup and institutional/cultural levels for both other and self-directed forms of ageism. Our findings come with important implications for the development and expansion of current policies against ageism, as discussed below.

Different sets of determinants seem to contribute to other and self-directed forms of ageism. Studies on other-directed determinants have mainly focused on the effect of intrapersonal-level determinants. Here, the most robust determinants are individuals’ “anxiety of ageing” and “fear of death”. From a pre-emptive perspective, one may argue that the impact of “fear of death” may be difficult to reduce, as terror management theories postulate that this fear is deep-seated, and even fundamental to the human condition. However, at the same time, our study also suggests that educational efforts to address the representations of illness and death hold the potential to change how contemporary societies perceive and understand ageing. At the individual level, studies have also shown that specific personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness and agreeableness) and individual psychological factors (e.g., personal degree of collectivistic orientation) work to mitigate ageism against older people. This finding is in tune with personality-based theories of prejudice and highlights the need to consider intra-individual differences when designing and implementing interventions to pre-empt ageism.

At the interpersonal and intergroup levels, contact with older people seems to be the most important determinant of other-directed ageism. It is commonly accepted that contact with older individuals in itself is sufficient to reduce ageism—the fact that we identified more than twice as many studies dealing with the effect of contact frequency as compared to contact quality supports this general belief. However, our findings point to the importance of the quality of the contact over frequency and to the importance of how older individuals are presented (we are less likely to stereotype older individuals of whom we have a positive image). Therefore, one can hypothesise that ageism could be reduced by stimulating intergenerational contact in a positive context—this may include, for instance, promoting initiatives where younger individuals may work with older individuals and share experiences. Following the same rationale, attention should also be directed at the portrayal of older people and ageing in media content, where the presentation of more positive images of older adults offers a promising avenue to tackle ageism.

At the institutional and cultural level, only two determinants were identified as robustly associated with other-direct ageism: the availability of resources in society and the percentage of older people in the country. As scarcity of resources increases, especially in the face of an increase in the number of older people, tensions over resource allocation tend to spark, leading to higher rates of ageism. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that ageism will decrease as societies develop economically.

In self-directed ageism, only intrapersonal determinants have been thoroughly explored. However, out of the nine factors identified, only individuals’ mental and physical health showed a robust association. This result is important because it highlights the need to invest in policies promoting active and healthy ageing practices that allow individuals to live longer, healthier and happier lives. We could not find any robust association between self-directed forms of ageism and determinants at the interpersonal/intergroup and institutional/cultural levels of analysis.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies

Whereas some factors have been widely studied without consensus on their effect on ageism, such as age and sex, others have been largely ignored. At the individual level, we found very few studies dealing, for instance, with individuals’ norms, age group identification and cognitive processes. Moreover, the role of institutional and cultural factors (e.g., age discrimination laws) in the development and expression of ageism still remains a blind spot when we consider the literature altogether. Future research clarifying whether these factors may play a role will be more than welcome given their important policy implications (e.g., anti-age discrimination legislation). It would also be important to invest in exploring further factors that yielded inconclusive results so far. For instance, despite the idea that older women may be perceived as per a “double-standard” of ageing—being rated more negatively than men—we could not find a consistent effect of gender of the target being evaluated. In fact, some studies show that this effect does not seem to occur for all measures of ageism and/or in all domains. For instance, Kornadt and colleagues found that women were rated more positively than men in domains such as friendship, leisure and health; however, they were rated worse than men in the domains of finances and work. In the same vein, it would also be interesting to expand research to explore neglected factors, such as self-related aspects and other-directed forms of ageism expressed by older people themselves. Taking into consideration that there is a vast body of research showing that older people are especially prone to be affected by ageism and self-stereotypes, it would be important to deepen our knowledge about which factors, beyond health-related aspects, may influence self-directed ageism.

One major drawback of our work is the fact that our results derive mainly from studies conducted in English-speaking countries (e.g., USA) and with female, young participants. This aspect raises questions about the generalisability of our findings to other contexts where ageism prevails. Furthermore, in this manuscript we report only on quantitative studies, leaving aside qualitative evidence. We believe that also taking this research into consideration would be fruitful in the future in the sense that qualitative studies offer the opportunity for rich and in-depth detail, which may be advantageous in situations where a detailed understanding may be required, such as understanding how these determinants can contribute to ageism. We also found that studies in this field of research are mostly correlational in nature, which limits inferences on the causal contribution of the determinants identified herein to ageism (e.g., fear of death may be caused by ageism itself). Future research capitalising on experimental designs may address this limitation, at least for some of the determinants presented herein.

In this work, we adopted a narrative synthesis where we analysed: i) the number of papers that explored a certain determinant; ii) within these papers, how many found a significant association of the determinant with ageism (where we classified the direction of the effect as “positive” or “negative” or “non-significant or mixed”). The strength of the relationship of the determinant with ageism is thus given by the percentage of papers that found a significant relationship, within the ones where that specific determinant was explored. As per previous literature on the study of determinants in other fields, we took a semi-quantitative approach according to which we considered a determinant to be robustly associated with ageism if there was a significant relationship in a consistent direction in at least 60% of the papers that explored this determinant. While we decided to keep our scope broad and not to conduct quantitative synthesis on specific determinants, we are convinced that our findings help to identify specific determinants for which meta-analyses may be feasible and worth investigating.

Finally, it is important to consider that this work was developed in the context of a large-scale and collaborative effort to identify, summarise and synthesise virtually all relevant literature in this field of research, over a large period of time. However, despite all efforts implemented to minimise searching bias (i.e., snowballing procedure), it is possible that relevant papers were missed. Also, although our study spanned a large period of time, including virtually all papers from 1970 to 2017 (and also online versions of published papers in 2018), we did not include all papers potentially published since the end-date of our searching period until now. Our review departed from a vast pool of studies, which allowed us to minimise searching bias but delayed time from searching to dissemination. We decided to not conduct an immediate update to keep our strategy consistent with the remainder of projects developed in the context of the same initiative—the Global Campaign to Combat Ageism of the WHO. While our work is the first systematic review effort on this topic and sets bases for future endeavours within the same scope, we acknowledge it may be important to revisit this topic in a few years for an update (may further developments in the field justify).

5. Conclusions

Ageism is one of the major threats to active ageing and manifests itself on a range of domains from individual to institutional and cultural levels. Tackling ageism should be a priority for policy makers, and it seems obvious from our findings that a campaign to combat ageism will necessarily need to consider factors spanning different levels/domains in order to be successful. We believe our review will support these efforts by helping to identify major factors that have been empirically and robustly demonstrated to contribute to negative visions of ageing and older people. At the same time, we also hope this work may entice further research bridging the research gaps our integrated appraisal of the literature highlighted.

References 240

  1. 1.

    United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. 2017.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    Officer A., de la Fuente-Núñez V. A global campaign to combat ageism. Bull. World Health Organ. 2018;96:295.

    Not in our library10.2471/blt.17.202424

  3. 3.

    Levy B.R. Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2003;58:203-2011.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronb/58.4.p203

  4. 4.

    Levy B.R., Banaji M.R. Implicit ageism. Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. 2002;49-75.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Levy B.R. Improving memory in old age through implicit self-stereotyping. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996;71:1092-1107.

    Not in our library10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1092

  6. 6.

    Levy B.R., Zonderman A.B., Slade M.D., Ferrucci L. Age stereotypes held earlier in life predict cardiovascular events in later life. Psychol. Sci. 2009;20:296-298.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02298.x

  7. 7.

    Naegele L., De Tavernier W., Hess M. Work Environment and the Origin of Ageism. Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. 2018;73-90.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8-5

  8. 8.

    Marques S., Lima M.L., Abrams D., Swift H. Will to live in older people’s medical decisions: Immediate and delayed effects of aging stereotypes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2014;44:399-408.

    Not in our library10.1111/jasp.12231

  9. 9.

    Levy B.R., Slade M., Chang E.-S., Kannoth S., Wang S.Y. Ageism amplifies cost and prevalence of health conditions. Gerontologist. 2018;60:174-181.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/gny131

  10. 10.

    Iversen T.N., Larsen L., Solem P.E. A conceptual analysis of ageism. Nord. Psychol. 2009;61:4-22.

    Not in our library10.1027/1901-2276.61.3.4

  11. 11.

    Ayalon L., Tesch-Romer C. Taking a closer look at ageism: Self-and other-directed ageist attitudes and discrimination. Eur. J. Aging. 2017;14:1-4.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10433-016-0409-9

  12. 12.

    Inglehart R., Haerpfer C., Moreno A., Welzel C., Kizilova K., Diez-Medrano J., Lagos M., Norris P., Ponarin E., Puranen B., et al. World Values Survey: Round Six - Country-Pooled Datafile Version: www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp. 2014.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    North M.S., Fiske S.T. Modern attitudes toward older adults in the aging world: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2015;141:993.

    Not in our library10.1037/a0039469

  14. 14.

    Schoenberg N.E., Lewis D., Palmore E., Branch L., Harris D. Cross-cultural ageism. The Encyclopedia of Ageism. 2005;87-92.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    Chonody J.M., Teater B. Why do I dread looking old: A test of social identity theory, terror management theory, and the double standard of aging. J. Women Aging. 2016;28:112-126.

    Not in our library10.1080/08952841.2014.950533

  16. 16.

    Kite M.E., Stockdale G.D., Whitley B.E., Johnson B.T. Attitudes toward younger and older adults: An updated meta-analytic review. J. Soc. Issues. 2005;61:241-266.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00404.x

  17. 17.

    Bodner E. On the origins of ageism among older and younger adults. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2009;21:1003-1014.

    Not in our library10.1017/s104161020999055x

  18. 18.

    Grant M.J., Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009;26:91-108.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

  19. 19.

    Stierlin A.S., De Lepeleere S., Cardon G., Dargent-Molina P., Hoffmann B., Murphy M.H., Kennedy A., O’Donoghue G., Chastin S.F., De Craemer M. A systematic review of determinants of sedentary behaviour in youth: A DEDIPAC-study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015;12:133.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12966-015-0291-4

  20. 20.

    Sallis J.F., Owen N., Fisher E. Ecological models of health behavior. Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2015;Volume 5:43-64.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    McLeroy K.R., Bibeau D., Steckler A., Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ. Q. 1988;15:351-377.

    Not in our library10.1177/109019818801500401

  22. 22.

    Officer A., Schneiders M.L., Wu D., Nash P., Thiyagarajan J.A., Beard J. Valuing older people: Time for a global campaign to combat ageism. Bull. World Health Organ. 2016;94:710.

    Not in our library10.2471/blt.16.184960

  23. 23.
    Global reach of ageism on older persons’ health: A systematic review · 2020
    No notice
  24. 24.
    A systematic review of existing ageism scales · 2019
    No notice
  25. 25.

    Burnes D., Sheppard C., Henderson C.R., Wassel M., Cope R., Barber C., Pillemer K. Interventions to reduce ageism against older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Public Health. 2019;109:e1-e9.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2019.305123

  26. 26.

    Condello G., Puggina A., Aleksovska K., Buck C., Burns C., Cardon G., Carlin A., Simon C., Ciarapica D., Coppinger T., et al. Behavioral determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017;14:58.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12966-017-0510-2

  27. 27.

    Mills S., White M., Robalino S., Wrieden W., Brown H., Adams J. Systematic review of the health and social determinants of home cooking: Protocol. Syst. Rev. 2015;4:35.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13643-015-0033-3

  28. 28.

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Live Longer, Work Longer. 2006.

    Not in our library10.1787/9789264035881-en

  29. 29.
    Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part I: Quantitative studies. · 2006
    No notice
  30. 30.

    Bramer W.M., Giustini D., de Jonge G.B., Holland L., Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. JMLA. 2016;104:240-243.

    Not in our library10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014

  31. 31.

    Downs S.H., Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 1998;52:377-384.

    Not in our library10.1136/jech.52.6.377

  32. 32.

    Wells G., Shea B., O’Connell D., Peterson J., Welch V., Losos M. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analysis. 2008.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    Torres N., Martins D., Santos A.J., Prata D., Veríssimo M. How do hypothalamic nonapeptides shape youth’s sociality? A systematic review on oxytocin, vasopressin and human socio-emotional development. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018;90:309-331.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.05.004

  34. 34.

    Martins D., Mehta M.A., Prata D. The “highs and lows” of the human brain on dopaminergics: Evidence from neuropharmacology. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2017;80:351-371.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.06.003

  35. 35.

    Higgins J.P., Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2008.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    Adams-Price C.E., Morse L.W. Dependency stereotypes and aging: The implications for getting and giving help in later life. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009;39:2967-2984.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00557.x

  37. 37.

    Allan L.J., Johnson J.A., Emerson S.D. The role of individual difference variables in ageism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014;59:32-37.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.027

  38. 38.

    Ayalon L. Feelings towards Older vs. Younger Adults: Results from the European Social Survey. Educ. Gerontol. 2013;39:888-901.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601277.2013.767620

  39. 39.

    Ayalon L. Perceived Age Discrimination: A Precipitator or a Consequence of Depressive Symptoms? J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2016;73:860-869.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronb/gbw101

  40. 40.

    Bacanli H., Ahokas M., Best D.L. Stereotypes of Old Adults in Turkey and Finland. 1994;307-319.

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    Baker P.M. Ageism, sex, and age: A factorial survey approach. Can. J. Aging. 1983;2:177-184.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0714980800004645

  42. 42.

    Beatty A.G. Social Contact with the Elderly and Degree of Collectivism as Correlates of Ageism in Caucasian and Asian-American Populations. 2009.

    Not in our library

  43. 43.

    Beck J.D., Ettings R.L., Glenn R.E., Paule C.L., Hotzman J.M. Oral health status: Impact on dental student attitudes toward the aged. Gerontologist. 1979;19:580-585.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/19.6.580

  44. 44.

    Bell B.D., Stanfield G.G. Chronological Age in Relation to Attitudinal Judgments: An Experimental Analysis. J. Gerontol. 1973;28:491-496.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/28.4.491

  45. 45.

    Bergman Y.S., Bodner E., Cohen-Fridel S. Cross-cultural ageism: Ageism and attitudes toward aging among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2013;25:6-15.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1041610212001548

  46. 46.

    Bhana K. Sex trait stereotypes of adults across different life periods. Int. J. Psychol. 1983;18:539-544.

    Not in our library10.1080/00207598308247499

  47. 47.

    Bieman-Copland S., Ryan E.B. Social perceptions of failures in memory monitoring. Psychol. Aging. 2001;16:357-361.

    Not in our library10.1037/0882-7974.16.2.357

  48. 48.

    Bierly M.M. Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a generalized attitude. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1985;15:189-199.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02344.x

  49. 49.

    Bodner E., Cohen-Fridel S. The paths leading from attachment to ageism: A structural equation model approach. Death Stud. 2014;38:423-429.

    Not in our library10.1080/07481187.2013.766654

  50. 50.

    Bodner E., Cohen-Fridel S. Relations between attachment styles, ageism and quality of life in late life. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2010;22:1353-1361.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1041610210001249

  51. 51.

    Bodner E., Lazar A. Ageism among Israeli students: Structure and demographic influences. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2008;20:1046-1058.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1041610208007151

  52. 52.

    Bodner E., Cohen-Fridel S., Yaretzky A. Sheltered housing or community dwelling: Quality of life and ageism among elderly people. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2011;23:1197-1204.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1041610211001025

  53. 53.

    Bodner E., Bergman Y.S., Cohen-Fridel S. Different dimensions of ageist attitudes among men and women: A multigenerational perspective. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:895-901.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1041610211002936

  54. 54.

    Bodner E., Shrira A., Bergman Y.S., Cohen-Fridel S., Grossman E.S. The interaction between aging and death anxieties predicts ageism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015;86:15-19.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.022

  55. 55.

    Boudjemadi V., Gana K. Effect of mortality salience on implicit ageism: Implication of age stereotypes and sex. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2012;62:9-17.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.erap.2011.11.002

  56. 56.

    Bousfield C., Hutchison P. Contact, Anxiety, and Young People’s Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions towards the Elderly. Educ. Gerontol. 2010;36:451-466.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601270903324362

  57. 57.

    Bowen C.E., Skirbekk V. National Stereotypes of Older People’s Competence Are Related to Older Adults’ Participation in Paid and Volunteer Work. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2013;68:974-983.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronb/gbt101

  58. 58.

    Braithwaite V., Gibson D., Holman J. Age stereotyping: Are we oversimplifying the phenomenon? Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1986;22:315-325.

    Not in our library10.2190/q2tm-b9v7-hdbd-6x6h

  59. 59.

    Braithwaite V., Lynd-Stevenson R., Pigram D. Empirical study of ageism: From polemics to scientific utility. Aust. Psychol. 1993;28:9-15.

    Not in our library10.1080/00050069308258857

  60. 60.

    Brewer M.B., Lui L. Categorization of the elderly by the elderly: Effects of perceiver’s category membership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1984;10:585-595.

    Not in our library10.1177/0146167284104012

  61. 61.

    Bryant C., Bei B., Gilson K.M., Komiti A., Jackson H., Judd F. Antecedents of attitudes to aging: A study of the roles of personality and well-being. Gerontologist. 2014;56:256-265.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/gnu041

  62. 62.

    Burge J.M. Stereotyped attitudes toward the aged in nursing homes. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 1978;1:53-61.

    Not in our library10.3109/01612847809044147

  63. 63.

    Canetto S.S., Kaminski P.L., Felicio D.M. Typical and optimal aging in women and men: Is there a double standard? Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1995;40:187-207.

    Not in our library10.2190/rx0u-t56b-1g0f-266u

  64. 64.

    Cary L.A., Chasteen A.L., Cadieux J. Does Age Group Identification Differentially Influence Younger and Older Adults’ Intergenerational Perceptions? Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2013;77:331-346.

    Not in our library10.2190/ag.77.4.d

  65. 65.

    Caspi A. Contact hypothesis and inter-age attitudes: A field study of cross-age contact. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1984;47:74-80.

    Not in our library10.2307/3033890

  66. 66.

    Celejewski I., Dion K.K. Self-Perception and Perception of Age Groups as a Function of the Perceiver’s Category Membership. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1998;47:205-216.

    Not in our library10.2190/gl4r-fj7g-xgek-mrr6

  67. 67.

    Chan W., McCrae R.R., De Fruyt F., Jussim L., Löckenhoff C.E., De Bolle M., Costa P.T., Sutin A.R., Realo A., Allik J., et al. Stereotypes of age differences in personality traits: Universal and accurate? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2012;103:1050-1066.

    Not in our library10.1037/a0029712

  68. 68.

    Chang B.L., Chang A.F., Shen Y. Attitudes toward aging in the United States and Taiwan. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 1984;15:109-130.

    Not in our library10.3138/jcfs.15.1.109

  69. 69.

    Chasteen A.L. Role of age and age-related attitudes in perceptions of elderly individuals. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000;22:147-156.

    Not in our library10.1207/s15324834basp2203_3

  70. 70.

    Chasteen A.L. Seeing eye-to-eye: Do intergroup biases operate similarly for younger and older adults? Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2005;61:123-139.

    Not in our library10.2190/07q7-bwyt-nc9e-51fx

  71. 71.

    Chen Y., Pethtel O., Ma X. Counteracting Age Stereotypes: A Self-Awareness Manipulation. Educ. Gerontol. 2010;36:702-717.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601270903534523

  72. 72.

    Chen C.-Y., Joyce N., Harwood J., Xiang J. Stereotype reduction through humor and accommodation during imagined communication with older adults. Commun. Monogr. 2017;84:94-109.

    Not in our library10.1080/03637751.2016.1149737

  73. 73.

    Cherry K.E., Allen P.D., Denver J.Y., Holland K.R. Contributions of Social Desirability to Self-Reported Ageism. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2015;34:712-733.

    Not in our library10.1177/0733464813484984

  74. 74.

    Cheung C.-K., Chan C.-M., Lee J.-J. Beliefs about elderly people among social workers and the general public in Hong Kong. J. Cross-Cultural Gerontol. 1999;14:131-152.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1006604926602

  75. 75.

    Cheung C.-K., Kam P.K., Man-hung Ngan R. Age discrimination in the labour market from the perspectives of employers and older workers. Int. Soc. Work. 2011;54:118-136.

    Not in our library10.1177/0020872810372368

  76. 76.

    Chiu W.C.K., Chan A.W., Snape E., Redman T. Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison. Hum. Relat. 2001;54:629-661.

    Not in our library10.1177/0018726701545004

  77. 77.

    Choi C.W., Khajavy G.H., Giles H., Hajek C. Intergenerational communication and age boundaries in Mongolia and the United States. Commun. Rep. 2013;26:73-87.

    Not in our library10.1080/08934215.2013.790981

  78. 78.

    Chopik W.J., Giasson H.L. Age Differences in Explicit and Implicit Age Attitudes across the Life Span. Gerontologist. 2017;57:S169-S177.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/gnx058

  79. 79.

    Chou R.J.-A., Choi N.G. Prevalence and correlates of perceived workplace discrimination among older workers in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 2011;31:1051-1070.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0144686x10001297

  80. 80.

    Chung C., Lin Z. A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Positivity Effect in Memory: United States vs. China. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2012;75:31-44.

    Not in our library10.2190/ag.75.1.d

  81. 81.

    Clément-Guillotin C., Radel R., Chalabaev A. If You Are Old and Do Not Want to Fall into The Traditional Stereotype—Be Physically Active! Exp. Aging Res. 2015;41:446-462.

    Not in our library10.1080/0361073x.2015.1053768

  82. 82.

    Collette-Pratt C. Attitudinal predictors of devaluation of old age in a multigenerational sample. J. Gerontol. 1976;31:193-197.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/31.2.193

  83. 83.

    Connor C.L., Walsh R.P., Litzelman D.K., Alvarez M.G. Evaluation of job applicants: The effects of age versus success. J. Gerontol. 1978;33:246-252.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/33.2.246

  84. 84.

    Cox C.B., Barron L. The effects of changing anti-discrimination legal standards on the evaluation of older workers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012;42:E198-E221.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01040.x

  85. 85.

    Crew J.C. Age stereotypes as a function of race. Acad. Manag. J. 1984;27:431-435.

    Not in our library10.2307/255934

  86. 86.

    Cullen C., Barnes-Holmes D., Barnes-Holmes Y., Stewart I. The Implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the malleability of ageist attitudes. Psychol. Rec. 2009;59:591-620.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf03395683

  87. 87.

    Daşbaş S., Kesen N.F. Attitudes of social work students towards the ageism. J. Int. Soc. Res. 2015;8:702-710.

    Not in our library10.17719/jisr.20153813679

  88. 88.

    Dasgupta N., Greenwald A.G. On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2001;81:800-814.

    Not in our library10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.800

  89. 89.

    Davidson D., Luo Z., Fulton B.R. Stereotyped views of older adults in children from the People’s Republic of China and from the United States. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 2008;5:6-24.

    Not in our library10.1300/j194v05n04_02

  90. 90.

    de Guzman A.B., Amrad H.N., Araullo R.C.G., Cheung H.B.O. A Structural Equation Modeling of the Factors Affecting an Age-friendly Workplace. Educ. Gerontol. 2014;40:387-400.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601277.2013.802194

  91. 91.

    Demir G., Bicer S., Bulucu-Böyüksoy G.D., Özen B. Attitudes of Nursing Students about Ageism and the Related Factors. Int. J. Caring Sci. 2016;9:900-908.

    Not in our library

  92. 92.

    Depaola S.J., Neimeyer R.A., Lupfer M.B., Fiedler J. Death concern and attitudes toward the elderly in nursing home personnel. Death Stud. 1992;16:537-555.

    Not in our library10.1080/07481189208252597

  93. 93.

    Depaola S.J., Neimeyer R., Ross S.K. Death Concern and Attitudes toward the Elderly in Nursing Home Personnel as a Function of Training. OMEGA J. Death Dying. 1994;29:231-248.

    Not in our library10.2190/t0ly-w07y-vvx0-nmap

  94. 94.

    Depaola S.J., Griffin M., Young J.R., Neimeyer R.A. Death anxiety and attitudes toward the elderly among older adults: The role of gender and ethnicity. Death Stud. 2003;27:335-354.

    Not in our library10.1080/07481180302904

  95. 95.

    de Paula Couto M.C.P., Koller S.H. Warmth and competence: Stereotypes of the elderly among young adults and older persons in Brazil. Int. Perspect. Psychol. Res. Pract. Consult. 2012;1:52-62.

    Not in our library10.1037/a0027118

  96. 96.

    Deuisch F.M., Zalenski C.M., Clark M.E. Is There a Double Standard of Aging? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1986;16:771-785.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01167.x

  97. 97.

    Diekman A.B., Hirnisey L. The Effect of Context on the Silver Ceiling: A Role Congruity Perspective on Prejudiced Responses. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2007;33:1353-1366.

    Not in our library10.1177/0146167207303019

  98. 98.

    Donlon M.M., Ashman O., Levy B.R. Re-vision of older television characters: A stereotype-awareness intervention. J. Soc. Issues. 2005;61:307-319.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00407.x

  99. 99.

    Drury L., Hutchison P., Abrams D. Direct and extended intergenerational contact and young people’s attitudes towards older adults. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2016;55:522-543.

    Not in our library10.1111/bjso.12146

  100. 100.

    Drydakis N., MacDonald P., Chiotis V., Somers L. Age discrimination in the UK labour market. Does race moderate ageism? An experimental investigation. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2018;25:1-4.

    Not in our library10.1080/13504851.2017.1290763

  101. 101.

    Duncan L.A., Schaller M. Prejudicial attitudes toward older adults may be exaggerated when people feel vulnerable to infectious disease: Evidence and implications. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy. 2009;9:97-115.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01188.x

  102. 102.

    Faulkner G., Simone E.R., Irving H.M., Martin Ginis K. Young people’s impressions of older adults: The role of exercise habit information. Act. Adapt. Aging. 2007;31:37-50.

    Not in our library10.1300/j016v31n04_03

  103. 103.

    Ferraro K.F. Cohort change in images of older adults, 1974–1981. Gerontologist. 1992;32:296-304.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/32.3.296

  104. 104.

    Finkelstein L.M., Burke M.J. Age stereotyping at work: The role of rater and contextual factors on evaluations of job applicants. J. Gen. Psychol. 1998;125:317-345.

    Not in our library10.1080/00221309809595341

  105. 105.

    Folwell A.L. Applying the Ecological Perspective to Stereotypes: An Investigation of Older Adult Stereotypes as a Function of Interaction and Context. 1997.

    Not in our library

  106. 106.

    Freeman P.L. College Age Students’ Attitudes Towards the Older Adult: Grandparent Fit With Older Adult Stereotypes and the Closeness of the Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship. 2002.

    Not in our library

  107. 107.

    Fullen M.C. ‘Gray Hair is a Crown of Glory’: A Multivariate Analysis of Wellness, Resilience, and Internalized Ageism in Older Adulthood. 2016.

    Not in our library

  108. 108.

    Fusilier M.R., Hitt M.A. Effects of Age, Race, Sex, and Employment Experience on Students’ Perceptions of Job Applications. Percept. Mot. Skills. 1983;57:1127-1134.

    Not in our library10.2466/pms.1983.57.3f.1127

  109. 109.

    Gattuso S., Saw C. Reactions to ageing among Australian students: A rural-urban comparison. Australas. J. Ageing. 1998;17:38-39.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1741-6612.1998.tb00223.x

  110. 110.

    Gattuso S., Shadbolt A. Attitudes toward aging among Pacific Islander health students in Fiji. Educ. Gerontol. 2002;28:99-106.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601270252801364

  111. 111.

    Gekoski W.L., Knox V.J. Ageism or healthism? Perceptions based on age and health status. J. Aging Health. 1990;2:15-27.

    Not in our library10.1177/089826439000200102

  112. 112.

    Gekoski W.L., Jane Knox V.A., Johnson E.R., Evans K. Sex of target and sex of subject effects on the perception of 25, 45, 65, and 85 year olds. Can. J. Aging. 1984;3:155-164.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0714980800004773

  113. 113.

    Gibson K.J., Zerbe W.J., Franken R.E. The Influence of Rater and Ratee Age on Judgments of Work-Related Attributes. J. Psychol. 1993;127:271-280.

    Not in our library10.1080/00223980.1993.9915561

  114. 114.

    Gluth S., Ebner N.C., Schmiedek F. Attitudes toward younger and older adults: The German Aging Semantic Differential. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2010;34:147-158.

    Not in our library10.1177/0165025409350947

  115. 115.

    Gordon R.A., Rozelle R.M., Baxter J.C. The effect of applicant age, job level, and accountability on the evaluation of job applicants. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1988;41:20-33.

    Not in our library10.1016/0749-5978(88)90044-1

  116. 116.

    Graham I.D., Baker P.M. Status, age, and gender: Perceptions of old and young people. Can. J. Aging. 1989;8:255-267.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0714980800008886

  117. 117.

    Hale N.M. Effects of age and interpersonal contact on stereotyping of the elderly. Curr. Psychol. A J. Divers. Perspect. Divers. Psychol. Issues. 1998;17:28-47.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12144-998-1019-2

  118. 118.

    Harris J., Fiedler C.M. Preadolescent attitudes toward the elderly: An analysis of race, gender and contact variables. Adolescence. 1988;23:335-340.

    Not in our library

  119. 119.

    Harwood J., Giles H., Clément R., Pierson H., Fox S. Perceived vitality of age categories in California and Hong Kong. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 1994;15:311-318.

    Not in our library10.1080/01434632.1994.9994573

  120. 120.

    Harwood J., Giles H., McCann R.M., Cai D., Somera L.P., Ng S.H., Gallois C., Noels K. Older adults’ trait ratings of three age-groups around the Pacific rim. J. Cross-Cultural Gerontol. 2001;16:157-171.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1010616316082

  121. 121.

    Harwood J., Hewstone M., Paolini S., Voci A. Grandparent-Grandchild Contact and Attitudes Toward Older Adults: Moderator and Mediator Effects. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2005;31:393-406.

    Not in our library10.1177/0146167204271577

  122. 122.

    Haught P.A., Walls R.T., Laney J.D., Leavell A., Stuzen S. Child and adolescent knowledge and attitudes about older adults across time and states. Educ. Gerontol. 1999;25:501-517.

    Not in our library

  123. 123.

    Hawkins M.J. College students’ attitudes toward elderly persons. Educ. Gerontol. 1996;22:271-279.

    Not in our library10.1080/0360127960220305

  124. 124.

    Hehman J., Corpuz R., Bugental D. Patronizing Speech to Older Adults. J. Nonverbal Behav. 2012;36:249-261.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10919-012-0135-8

  125. 125.

    Hertzman J., Zhong Y. A model of hospitality students’ attitude toward and willingness to work with older adults. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016;28:681-699.

    Not in our library10.1108/ijchm-09-2014-0428

  126. 126.

    Huang C.-S. Undergraduate Students’ Knowledge about Aging and Attitudes toward Older Adults in East and West: A Socio-Economic and Cultural Exploration. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2013;77:59-76.

    Not in our library10.2190/ag.77.1.d

  127. 127.

    Hughes A., Bolar T., Kennison S.M. Ageism, Illegal Drug Use, and Young Adults’ Experiences with Illness, Dementia and Death. J. Artic. Support Null Hypothesis. 2016;13:15-23.

    Not in our library

  128. 128.

    Hummert M.L., Garstka T.A., Shaner J.L. Stereotyping of older adults: The role of target facial cues and perceiver characteristics. Psychol. Aging. 1997;12:107-114.

    Not in our library10.1037/0882-7974.12.1.107

  129. 129.

    Hummert M.L., Garstka T.A., O’Brien L.T., Greenwald A.G., Mellott D.S. Using the implicit association test to measure age differences in implicit social cognitions. Psychol. Aging. 2002;17:482-495.

    Not in our library10.1037/0882-7974.17.3.482

  130. 130.

    Hummert M.L. Age and typicality judgments of stereotypes of the elderly: Perceptions of elderly vs. young adults. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1993;37:217-226.

    Not in our library10.2190/l01p-v960-8p17-pl56

  131. 131.

    Hummert M.L. Physiognomic cues to age and the activation of stereotypes of the elderly in interaction. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1994;39:5-19.

    Not in our library10.2190/6ef6-p8pf-yp6f-vpy4

  132. 132.

    Iweins C., Desmette D., Yzerbyt V. Ageism at work: What happens to older workers who benefit from preferential treatment? Psychol. Belg. 2012;52:327-349.

    Not in our library10.5334/pb-52-4-327

  133. 133.

    Jackson L.A., Sullivan L.A. Age stereotype disconfirming information and evaluations of old people. J. Soc. Psychol. 1988;128:721-729.

    Not in our library10.1080/00224545.1988.9924552

  134. 134.

    Janečková H., Dragomirecká E., Holmerová I., Vaňková H. The attitudes of older adults living in institutions and their caregivers to ageing. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health. 2013;21:63-71.

    Not in our library10.21101/cejph.a3774

  135. 135.
    Patterns of Ageism in Different Age Groups · 2013
    Not checked
  136. 136.

    Kalavar J.M. Examining ageism: Do male and female college students differ? Educ. Gerontol. 2001;27:507-513.

    Not in our library10.1080/036012701316894199

  137. 137.

    Kane M.N. Social work students’ perceptions about incompetence in elders. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work. 2006;47:153-171.

    Not in our library10.1300/j083v47n03_10

  138. 138.

    Karpinska K., Henkens K., Schippers J. The recruitment of early retirees: A vignette study of the factors that affect managers’ decisions. Ageing Soc. 2011;31:570-589.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0144686x10001078

  139. 139.

    Katz R.S. Personality trait correlates of attitudes toward older people. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1990;31:147-159.

    Not in our library10.2190/xwwy-9jym-wjn2-q7a0

  140. 140.

    Kirk R.M. Age Differences in Identity Processing Styles and Self-Consciousness: A Moderation Analysis and Examination of Ageism. 2015.

    Not in our library

  141. 141.

    Knox V.J., Gekoski W.L. Effect of judgment context on assessments of age groups. Can. J. Aging. 1989;8:244-254.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0714980800008874

  142. 142.

    Knox V.J., Gekoski W.L., Johnson E.A. Contact with and perceptions of the elderly. Gerontologist. 1986;26:309-313.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/26.3.309

  143. 143.

    Kornadt A.E., Kandler C. Genetic and environmental sources of individual differences in views on aging. Psychol. Aging. 2017;32:388-399.

    Not in our library10.1037/pag0000174

  144. 144.

    Kornadt A.E., Rothermund K. Contexts of Aging: Assessing Evaluative Age Stereotypes in Different Life Domains. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2011;66:547-556.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronb/gbr036

  145. 145.

    Kornadt A.E., Voss P., Rothermund K. Multiple standards of aging: Gender-specific age stereotypes in different life domains. Eur. J. Ageing. 2013;10:335-344.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10433-013-0281-9

  146. 146.

    Krendl A.C. An fMRI investigation of the effects of culture on evaluations of stigmatized individuals. NeuroImage. 2016;124:336-349.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.030

  147. 147.

    Kuhlmann B.G., Kornadt A.E., Bayen U.J., Meuser K., Wulff L. Multidimensionality of Younger and Older Adults’ Age Stereotypes: The Interaction of Life Domain and Adjective Dimension. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2017;72:436-440.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronb/gbv049

  148. 148.

    Kulik C.T., Perry E.L., Bourhis A.C. Ironic evaluation processes: Effects of thought suppression on evaluations of older job applicants. J. Organ. Behav. 2000;21:689-711.

    Not in our library10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<689::aid-job52>3.0.co;2-w

  149. 149.

    Kwong See S.T., Nicoladis E. Impact of Contact on the Development of Children’s Positive Stereotyping about Aging Language Competence. Educ. Gerontol. 2009;36:52-66.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601270903018352

  150. 150.

    Laditka S.B., Laditka J.N., Houck M.M., Olatosi B.A. Not quite color blind: Ethnic and gender differences in attitudes toward older people among college students. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2011;73:53-71.

    Not in our library10.2190/ag.73.1.c

  151. 151.

    Laidlaw K., Wang D., Coelho C., Power M. Attitudes to ageing and expectations for filial piety across Chinese and British cultures: A pilot exploratory evaluation. Aging Ment. Health. 2010;14:283-292.

    Not in our library10.1080/13607860903483060

  152. 152.

    Lamont R.A., Nelis S.M., Quinn C., Clare L. Social support and attitudes to aging in later life. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2017;84:109-125.

    Not in our library10.1177/0091415016668351

  153. 153.

    Levy B.R. Inner self of the Japanese elderly: A defense against negative stereotypes of aging. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1999;48:131-144.

    Not in our library10.2190/e9gl-uld1-xmjy-lttf

  154. 154.

    Levy B.R. Rigidity as a predictor of older persons’ aging stereotypes and aging self-perceptions. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2008;36:559-570.

    Not in our library10.2224/sbp.2008.36.4.559

  155. 155.

    Levy B.R., Slade M.D., Chung P.H., Gill T.M. Resiliency over Time of Elders’ Age Stereotypes After Encountering Stressful Events. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2015;70:886-890.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronb/gbu082

  156. 156.

    Lin X., Bryant C. Students’ attitudes toward older people: A cross-cultural comparison. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 2009;7:411-424.

    Not in our library10.1080/15350770903285320

  157. 157.

    Linville P.W. Complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1982;42:193-211.

    Not in our library10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.193

  158. 158.

    Locke-Connor C., Walsh R.P. Attitudes toward the older job applicant: Just as competent, but more likely to fail. J. Gerontol. 1980;35:920-927.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/35.6.920

  159. 159.

    Löckenhoff C.E., De Fruyt F., Terracciano A., McCrae R.R., De Bolle M., Costa P.T., Aguilar-Vafaie M.E., Chang-kyu A., Hyun-nie A., Alcalay L., et al. Perceptions of Aging Across 26 Cultures and Their Culture-Level Associates. Psychol. Aging. 2009;24:941-954.

    Not in our library10.1037/a0016901

  160. 160.

    Lookinland S., Anson K. Perpetuation of ageist attitudes among present and future health care personnel: Implications for elder care. J. Adv. Nurs. 1995;21:47-56.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21010047.x

  161. 161.

    Luchesi B.M., Alexandre T.D.S., de Oliveira N.A., Brigola A.G., Kusumota L., Pavarini S.C.I., Marques S. Factors associated with attitudes toward the elderly in a sample of elderly caregivers. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2016;28:2079-2089.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1041610216001538

  162. 162.

    Luo B., Zhou K., Jin E., Newman A., Liang J. Ageism among College Students: A Comparative Study between U.S. and China. J. Cross-Cultural Gerontol. 2013;28:49-63.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10823-013-9186-5

  163. 163.

    Luszcz M.A., Fitzgerald K.M. Understanding cohort differences in cross-generational, self, and peer perceptions. J. Gerontol. 1986;41:234-240.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/41.2.234

  164. 164.

    Lytle A. A Comparison of Two Theoretical Approaches to Addressing Ageism: Education and Extended Contact. 2016.

    Not in our library

  165. 165.

    Marquet M., Missotten P., Schroyen S., Nindaba D., Adam S. Ageism in Belgium and Burundi: A comparative analysis. Clin. Interv. Aging. 2016;11:1129-1139.

    Not in our library10.2147/cia.s105298

  166. 166.

    Martens A., Greenberg J., Schimel J., Landau M.J. Ageism and death: Effects of mortality salience and perceived similarity to elders on reactions to elderly people. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2004;30:1524-1536.

    Not in our library10.1177/0146167204271185

  167. 167.

    McCann R.M., Keaton S.A. A Cross Cultural Investigation of Age Stereotypes and Communication Perceptions of Older and Younger Workers in the USA and Thailand. Educ. Gerontol. 2013;39:326-341.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601277.2012.700822

  168. 168.

    McNamara T.K., Pitt-Catsouphes M., Sarkisian N., Besen E., Kidahashi M. Age Bias in the Workplace: Cultural Stereotypes and In-Group Favoritism. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2016;83:156-183.

    Not in our library10.1177/0091415016648708

  169. 169.

    Melanson P.M., Downe-Wamboldt B.L. Antecedents of baccalaureate student nurses’ attitudes toward the elderly. J. Adv. Nurs. 1985;10:527-532.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2648.1985.tb00543.x

  170. 170.

    Miller S.M., Blalock J., Ginsburg H.J. Children and the aged: Attitudes, contact, and discriminative ability. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1984;19:47-53.

    Not in our library10.2190/hra5-pjjr-kklr-d3pc

  171. 171.

    Milligan W.L., Powell D.A., Harley C., Furchtgott E. Physical health correlated of attitudes toward aging in the elderly. Exp. Aging Res. 1985;11:75-80.

    Not in our library10.1080/03610738508259283

  172. 172.

    Milligan W.L., Prescott L., Powell D.A., Furchtgott E. Attitudes towards aging and physical health. Exp. Aging Res. 1989;15:33-41.

    Not in our library10.1080/03610738908259756

  173. 173.

    Montepare J.M., Zebrowitz-McArthur L. Impressions of people created by age-related qualities of their gaits. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988;55:547-556.

    Not in our library10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.547

  174. 174.

    Narayan C. Is there a double standard of aging: Older men and women and ageism. Educ. Gerontol. 2008;34:782-787.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601270802042123

  175. 175.

    Ng R., Allore H.G., Trentalange M., Monin J.K., Levy B.R. Increasing negativity of age stereotypes across 200 years: Evidence from a database of 400 million words. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0117086.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0117086

  176. 176.

    Nochajski T.H., Davis E.L., Waldrop D.P., Fabiano J.A., Goldberg L.J. Dental students’ attitudes about older adults: Do type and amount of contact make a difference? J. Dent. Educ. 2011;75:1329-1332.

    Not in our library

  177. 177.

    Nochajski T.H., Waldrop D.P., Davis E.L., Fabiano J.A., Goldberg L.J. Factors that influence dental students’ attitudes about older adults. J. Dent. Educ. 2009;73:95-104.

    Not in our library

  178. 178.

    North M.S., Fiske S.T. Act Your (Old) Age: Prescriptive, Ageist Biases Over Succession, Consumption, and Identity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2013;39:720-734.

    Not in our library10.1177/0146167213480043

  179. 179.

    North M.S., Fiske S.T. Resource scarcity and prescriptive attitudes generate subtle, intergenerational older-worker exclusion. J. Soc. Issues. 2016;72:122-145.

    Not in our library10.1111/josi.12159

  180. 180.

    O’Connell A.N., Rotter N.G. The Influence of Stimulus Age and Sex on Person Perception1. J. Gerontol. 1979;34:220-228.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/34.2.220

  181. 181.

    O’Connor M.L., McFadden S.H. A Terror Management Perspective on Young Adults’ Ageism and Attitudes toward Dementia. Educ. Gerontol. 2012;38:627-643.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601277.2011.595335

  182. 182.

    Obhi H.K., Woodhead E.L. Attitudes and Experiences With Older Adults: A Case for Service Learning for Undergraduates. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2016;37:108-122.

    Not in our library10.1080/02701960.2015.1079704

  183. 183.

    Okoye U.O. Young children’s perception of the elderly: A comparison of data from the United States and southeastern Nigeria. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 2005;3:7-24.

    Not in our library10.1300/j194v03n03_02

  184. 184.

    de Oliveira N.A., Moretti Luchesi B., Inouye K., Joan Barham E., Iost Pavarini S.C. Assessment of the attitudes toward aging among children who live with the elderly. Acta Paul. Enferm. 2015;28:87-94.

    Not in our library10.1590/1982-0194201500015

  185. 185.

    Özdemir Ö., Bilgili N. Attitudes of Turkish Nursing Students Related to Ageism. J. Nurs. Res. 2016;24:211-216.

    Not in our library10.1097/jnr.0000000000000131

  186. 186.

    Paris B.E.C., Gold G., Taylor B., Fields S.D., Mulvihill M.N., Capello C., de Beer K. First year medical student attitudes toward the elderly: A comparison of years 1986, 1991 and 1994. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 1997;18:13-22.

    Not in our library10.1300/j021v18n01_03

  187. 187.

    Passuth P.M., Cook F.L. Effects of television viewing on knowledge and attitudes about older adults: A critical reexamination. Gerontologist. 1985;25:69-77.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/25.1.69

  188. 188.

    Pecchioni L.L., Croghan J.M. Young adults’ stereotypes of older adults with their grandparents as the targets. J. Commun. 2002;52:715-730.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02570.x

  189. 189.

    Randler C., Vollmer C., Wilhelm D., Flessner M., Hummel E. Attitudes towards the Elderly among German Adolescents. Educ. Gerontol. 2014;40:230-238.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601277.2013.802187

  190. 190.

    Reed C.C., Beall S.C., Baumhover L.A. Gerontological education for students in nursing and social work: Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers. Educ. Gerontol. 1992;18:625-636.

    Not in our library10.1080/0360127920180603

  191. 191.

    Revenson T.A. Compassionate stereotyping of elderly patients by physicians: Revising the social contact hypothesis. Psychol. Aging. 1989;4:230-234.

    Not in our library10.1037/0882-7974.4.2.230

  192. 192.

    Rittenour C.E., Cohen E.L. Viewing Our Aged Selves: Age Progression Simulations Increase Young Adults’ Aging Anxiety and Negative Stereotypes of Older Adults. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2016;82:271-289.

    Not in our library10.1177/0091415016641690

  193. 193.

    Roberts J.M. Parameters of prejudice: Knowledge of ethics and age bias. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work. 2008;50:65-79.

    Not in our library10.1300/j083v50n3_06

  194. 194.

    Robertson D.A., Weiss D. In the eye of the beholder: Can counter-stereotypes change perceptions of older adults’ social status? Psychol. Aging. 2017;32:531-542.

    Not in our library10.1037/pag0000186

  195. 195.

    Ruiz J.G., Andrade A.D., Anam R., Taldone S., Karanam C., Hogue C., Mintzer M.J. Group-Based Differences in Anti-Aging Bias Among Medical Students. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2015;36:58-78.

    Not in our library10.1080/02701960.2014.966904

  196. 196.

    Runkawatt V., Gustafsson C., Engström G. Different Cultures but Similar Positive Attitudes: A Comparison between Thai and Swedish Nursing Students’ Attitudes toward Older People. Educ. Gerontol. 2013;39:92-102.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601277.2012.689934

  197. 197.

    Ruscher J.B., Hurley M.M. Off-target verbosity evokes negative stereotypes of older adults. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 2000;19:141-149.

    Not in our library10.1177/0261927x00019001007

  198. 198.

    Ryan E.B., Jin Y., Anas A.P., Luh J.J. Communication beliefs about youth and old age in Asia and Canada. J. Cross-Cultural Gerontol. 2004;19:343-360.

    Not in our library10.1023/b:jccg.0000044688.27282.7b

  199. 199.

    Ryan E.B., Laurie S. Evaluations of older and younger adult speakers: Influence of communication effectiveness and noise. Psychol. Aging. 1990;5:514-519.

    Not in our library10.1037/0882-7974.5.4.514

  200. 200.

    Sanders G.F., Pittman J.F. Attitudes of youth toward known and general target elderly. J. Appl. Gerontol. 1987;6:464-475.

    Not in our library10.1177/073346488700600408

  201. 201.

    Sargent-Cox K.A., Anstey K.J., Luszcz M.A. Change in health and self-perceptions of aging over 16 years: The role of psychological resources. Health Psychol. 2012;31:423-432.

    Not in our library10.1037/a0027464

  202. 202.

    Scheier M., Charles S.C., Richard S., David C.G., Irwin K. Sympathy, Self-Consciousness, and Reactions to the Stigmatized. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1978;8:270-282.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1559-1816.1978.tb00782.x

  203. 203.

    Schwartz L.K., Simmons J.P. Contact quality and attitudes toward the elderly. Educ. Gerontol. 2001;27:127-137.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601270151075525

  204. 204.

    Sherman N.C., Gold J.A., Sherman M.F. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Attribution Theory and Evaluations of Older Men among College Students, their Parents, and Grandparents. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1978;4:440-442.

    Not in our library10.1177/014616727800400316

  205. 205.

    Sherman S.R., Ward R.A., LaGory M. Socialization and aging group consciousness: The effect of neighborhood age concentration. J. Gerontol. 1985;40:102-109.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/40.1.102

  206. 206.

    Signori E.I., Butt D.S., Kozak J.F. Attitudes toward the aged of persons under and over the age of forty. Can. Couns. 1982;16:173-179.

    Not in our library

  207. 207.

    Skorinko J.L., Sinclair S.A. Perspective taking can increase stereotyping: The role of apparent stereotype confirmation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013;49:10-18.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.009

  208. 208.

    Smith M.L., Bergeron C.D., Cowart C., Ahn S., Towne S.D., Ory M.G., Menn M.A., Chaney J.D. Factors associated with ageist attitudes among college students. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017;17:1698-1706.

    Not in our library10.1111/ggi.12894

  209. 209.

    Soliz J., Harwood J. Perceptions of Communication in a Family Relationship and the Reduction of Intergroup Prejudice. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2003;31:320-345.

    Not in our library10.1080/1369681032000132582

  210. 210.

    Solomon K., Vickers R. Attitudes of health workers toward old people. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1979;27:186-191.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1532-5415.1979.tb06445.x

  211. 211.

    Springer S.A., Harwood J. The influence of episodic and thematic frames on policy and group attitudes: Mediational analysis. Hum. Commun. Res. 2015;41:226-244.

    Not in our library10.1111/hcre.12045

  212. 212.

    Steitz J.A., Verner B.S. What adolescents know about aging. Educ. Gerontol. 1987;13:357-368.

    Not in our library10.1080/0360127870130406

  213. 213.

    Stewart J.J., Giles L., Paterson J.E., Butler S.J. Knowledge and attitudes towards older people: New Zealand students entering health professional degrees. Phys. Occup. Ther. Geriatr. 2005;23:25-36.

    Not in our library10.1080/j148v23n04_02

  214. 214.

    Stewart M.A., Ryan E.B. Attitudes toward Younger and Older Adult Speakers: Effects of Varying Speech Rates. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 1982;1:91-109.

    Not in our library10.1177/0261927x8200100201

  215. 215.

    Stier D.L., Kline D.W. Situational Determinants of Attitudes toward the Elderly: An Experimental Analysis. Res. Aging. 1980;2:489-498.

    Not in our library10.1177/016402758024006

  216. 216.

    Stokes J.E., Moorman S.M. Who Are the People in Your Neighborhood? Neighborhood Age Composition and Age Discrimination. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2016;79:68-80.

    Not in our library10.1177/0190272515626569

  217. 217.

    Tam T., Hewstone M., Harwood J., Voci A., Kenworthy J. Intergroup Contact and Grandparent-Grandchild Communication: The Effects of Self-Disclosure on Implicit and Explicit Biases against Older People. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2006;9:413-429.

    Not in our library10.1177/1368430206064642

  218. 218.

    Tan P.P., Zhang N., Fan L. Students’ attitudes toward the elderly in the People’s Republic of China. Educ. Gerontol. 2004;30:305-314.

    Not in our library10.1080/03601270490278830

  219. 219.

    Thorson J.A., Whatley L., Hancock K. Attitudes toward the Aged as a Function of Age and Education12. Gerontol. 1974;14:316-318.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/14.4.316

  220. 220.

    Tomko J.K., Munley P.H. Predicting counseling psychologists attitudes and clinical judgments with respect to older adults. Aging Ment. Health. 2013;17:233-241.

    Not in our library10.1080/13607863.2012.715141

  221. 221.

    Trigg R., Watts S., Jones R., Tod A., Elliman R. Self-reported quality of life ratings of people with dementia: The role of attitudes to aging. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:1085-1093.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1041610212000038

  222. 222.

    Turner R.N., Crisp R.J. Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2010;49:129-142.

    Not in our library10.1348/014466609x419901

  223. 223.

    Vauclair C.-M., Marques S., Lima M.L., Bratt C., Swift H.J., Abrams D. Subjective Social Status of Older People Across Countries: The Role of Modernization and Employment. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2015;70:650-660.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronb/gbu074

  224. 224.

    Vauclair C.M., Hanke K., Huang L.L., Abrams D. Are Asian cultures really less ageist than Western ones? It depends on the questions asked. Int. J. Psychol. 2017;52:136-144.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijop.12292

  225. 225.

    Vauclair C.M., Borges Rodrigues R., Marques S., Esteves C.S., Cunha F., Gerardo F. Doddering but dear even in the eyes of young children? Age stereotyping and prejudice in childhood and adolescence. Int. J. Psychol. 2017;53:63-70.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijop.12430

  226. 226.

    Verhaeghen P., Aikman S.N., Van Gulick A.E. Prime and prejudice: Co-occurrence in the culture as a source of automatic stereotype priming. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2011;50:501-518.

    Not in our library10.1348/014466610x524254

  227. 227.

    Vrugt A., Schabracq M. Stereotypes with respect to elderly employees: The contribution of attribute information and representativeness. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1996;6:287-292.

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1099-1298(199610)6:4<287::aid-casp376>3.0.co;2-s

  228. 228.

    Waldrop D.P., Gress C. Public assistance employees’ perceptions of older adults and caregivers who apply for benefits. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2003;23:73-91.

    Not in our library10.1300/j021v23n01_06

  229. 229.

    Wang C.C., Liao W.C., Kao M.C., Chen Y.J., Lee M.C., Lee M.F., Yen C.H. Taiwanese medical and nursing student interest levels in and attitudes towards geriatrics. Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 2009;38:230-236.

    Not in our library

  230. 230.

    Wingard J.A., Heath R., Himelstein S.A. Effects of contextual variations on attitudes toward the elderly. J. Gerontol. 1982;37:475-482.

    Not in our library10.1093/geronj/37.4.475

  231. 231.

    Wurm S., Wolff J.K., Schüz B. Primary Care Supply Moderates the Impact of Diseases on Self-Perceptions of Aging. Psychol. Aging. 2014;29:351-358.

    Not in our library10.1037/a0036248

  232. 232.

    Zhang X., Xing C., Guan Y., Song X., Melloy R., Wang F., Jin X. Attitudes toward older adults: A matter of cultural values or personal values? Psychol. Aging. 2016;31:89-100.

    Not in our library10.1037/pag0000068

  233. 233.

    Zweibel N.R., Cassel C.K., Karrison T. Public attitudes about the use of chronological age as a criterion for allocating health care resources. Gerontologist. 1993;33:74-80.

    Not in our library10.1093/geront/33.1.74

  234. 234.

    Becker E. The Denial of Death. 1973.

    Not in our library

  235. 235.

    Bertman S.L. Facing Death: Images, Insights, and Interventions: A Handbook for Educators, Healthcare Professionals, and Counselors. 2016.

    Not in our library

  236. 236.

    Allport G. The Nature of Prejudice. 1954.

    Not in our library

  237. 237.

    Oró-Piqueras M., Marques S. Images of old age in YouTube: Destabilizing stereotypes. Continuum. 2017;31:257-265.

    Not in our library10.1080/10304312.2016.1265098

  238. 238.

    World Health Organization. World Report on Aging and Health. 2015.

    Not in our library

  239. 239.

    Levy B.R. Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009;18:332-336.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01662.x

  240. 240.
    A review and meta-analysis of age-based stereotype threat: Negative stereotypes, not facts, do the damage. · 2015
    Corrected

Cited by papers we hold 2

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.