There, but not there: older people in anti-ageism interventions

Abstract

There is growing attention to anti-ageism interventions, and evidence is mounting that education and contact with older people can reduce ageism. Yet outcomes in these interventions focus mainly on younger people and service providers, although older people are essential ingredients in the interventions. We argue that the lack of attention to older adults is a missed opportunity to improve older participants’ attitudes toward younger people and perhaps attain other benefits from intergenerational engagement. We repurposed the systematic review of Apriceno and Levy that focused on interventions to reduce ageism toward older people, and we studied the roles and outcomes experienced by the older participants in these interventions. Systematic attention to older participants is lacking, and their experiences and outcomes are not usually considered. In the small number of studies that assessed older participants, the results are promising. However, weaknesses in theoretical and empirical approaches abound in this literature. We urge scholars to elevate attention to older participants in anti-ageism interventions, develop programs with clear theoretical foundations as to outcomes expected for older as well as younger participants, and strengthen research designs and measurement, with the goal of promoting a more collaborative and inclusive society across all age groups.

Evidence suggests that ageism is prevalent in contemporary society, and its negative effects have been documented across multiple domains, including physical, emotional, and cognitive health (Allen et al., 2020, 2023). Furthermore, ageism can lead to exclusion from employment opportunities and denial of health care (Chang et al., 2020). In response to growing awareness of ageism’s deleterious effects, national and international efforts have emerged to combat ageism through media campaigns and educational resources, such as the Gerontological Society’s National Center to Reframe Aging (D’Antonio, 2021) and the World Health Organization’s Campaign to Combat Ageism (WHO, 2021). There is also more attention to developing and testing person-level interventions to reduce interpersonal ageism. The evidence is growing that education and positive contact with older people can increase knowledge about aging, reduce anxiety of aging, shift ageist attitudes, and increase comfort in interactions with older adults (Apriceno & Levy, 2023; Burnes et al., 2019). The field of anti-ageism scholarship and practice has grown, yet there is more that can be done.

In our consideration of this literature, it seems that anti-ageism interventions primarily target younger people and service providers. Clearly, changing attitudes about aging and biases toward older adults in these groups is important because they are a source of interpersonal ageism that older adults face. Additionally, these individuals will benefit from a more age-just society and less internalized ageism in their later years. However, in ageism reduction interventions, older adults are included as essential parts of the intervention, but in most cases, they are not viewed as targets for change in terms of their own ageist attitudes toward younger people or other older adults, nor in terms of other psychosocial benefits. Indeed, in their systematic review of interventions to reduce ageism, Burnes et al. (2019) concluded that consideration of the effects on older adults is lacking. Likewise, Jarrott et al. (2019) summarized that intergenerational programs that foster relationships between youth and older adults are built on the idea that there are mutual benefits to participants of all ages, although studies largely focus on outcomes for younger participants. Finally, in reviews of intergenerational programs in general (not only those aimed at ageism), few studies report outcomes for older participants (Lee et al., 2020).

As the title of this Forum article suggests, older adults are there in anti-ageism interventions as a key element of the programs, but they are not there in terms of consideration of their experiences, benefits, and costs of participation. We argue that the field needs increased attention to how older adults are included in anti-ageism interventions and what outcomes they experience. Anti-ageism scholarship needs a stronger and more systematic focus, both conceptually and empirically, on older participants to maximize benefits for all people involved.

To develop our argument, we took advantage of a recent systematic review of the literature on anti-ageism programs conducted by Apriceno and Levy (2023). These scholars reviewed 152 studies that focused on the reduction of ageism and analyzed their effectiveness and factors associated with positive outcomes. We, in turn, analyzed these articles for a different and complementary purpose: to evaluate how older adults are considered in ageism reduction programs. We investigated the roles of older participants in these interventions and the outcomes that were expected and achieved. Our conclusions highlight several noteworthy patterns in previous research, which lead us to suggestions for future scholarship.

Related literature

Two recent systematic reviews have provided overviews of anti-ageism interventions and their effectiveness (Apriceno & Levy, 2023; Burnes et al., 2019). Apriceno and Levy (2023) included studies that employed anti-ageism interventions targeting ageist attitudes, aging knowledge, comfort interacting with older adults, aging anxiety, or interest in careers working with older adults. Most of the interventions included educational and intergenerational contact components. They examined effect sizes associated with the interventions as well as possible moderating variables. For example, they examined the effects of program type (education, contact with older people, or both), duration of the contact, setting of the program, and age and gender of the participants. They concluded that ageism reduction programs can be effective in reducing ageist attitudes and increasing aging knowledge. These outcomes were more likely achieved when both education and positive intergenerational contact were components of the intervention.

In their earlier systematic review, Burnes et al. (2019) used inclusion criteria that were more stringent, only including studies with a comparison condition. They identified 63 studies, all of which were also included in the Apriceno and Levy (2023) review. Interventions were classified as education-only, intergenerational-only, or combined; participants were classified as preschool or primary school, high school, or university students. A meta-analysis indicated significant positive effects on attitudes, knowledge, and comfort with older adults, but there were no significant effects on anxiety about aging or a desire to work with older adults. Moderation analysis revealed that programs that included both educational and intergenerational contact were most effective on attitudes and knowledge outcomes, and female students experienced the greater positive effects. Together, these reviews summarize the positive effects that ageism reduction interventions can have.

One conceptual framework that supports the use of intergenerational programs to reduce ageism, the PEACE Model, was proposed by Levy (2018). This model suggests that two factors contribute to the reduction of ageism: education about aging and positive contact experience with older adults. The model relies on Allport’s intergroup contact theory, which proposed that exposure between people of different social groups can reduce prejudice (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). Further, Allport’s theory suggested exposures that included equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support were optimal. And indeed, the meta-analyses by Apriceno and Levy (2023) and Burnes et al. (2019) support the idea that both education and intergenerational contact reduce ageism. Apriceno and Levy further tested the optimal conditions as moderators in their analyses, and they found some empirical support for their hypotheses that programs that meet these conditions have greater positive effects, as suggested in Allport’s theory. We note here that Allport proposed that attitude change flowed in both directions when social groups are brought together. Therefore, intergroup contact theory would support the idea that older adults in anti-ageism programs are influenced as well.

Our re-review of older adults in anti-ageism interventions

Clearly, older adults are present in anti-ageism interventions when they participate in activities with younger people; yet little attention is directed toward how programs are affecting them. Repurposing the 2023 systematic review by Apriceno and Levy, we summarize the roles and outcomes experienced by older participants in anti-ageism interventions. While Apriceno and Levy focused on the outcomes achieved on the younger people and service providers, we sought to learn about the older people participating in these programs. Specifically, we wanted to know who the older adult participants are, what aims and outcomes are articulated for them, the nature of their involvement, and the outcomes they experience.

We first selected the 122 unique articles considered in Apriceno and Levy’s review. They classified each intervention as educational (operationalized as the presentation of any accurate information about aging, older adults, or ageism); contact (any program that exposed participants to older adults, in person or remotely via on-line or email, or depicted intergenerational contact through vignettes or videos), or both education and contact. For our focus on older adults, we analyzed only the interventions that included direct personal contact with older adults, either in person or remotely, excluding those that included older people only through vignettes/videos. Thus, we focused on 88 of the 122 articles (72%) in Apriceno and Levy’s review.

Our study team developed procedures for extracting information from the articles and developing codes for certain variables. We summarized the older adult demographic information and recorded study aims, hypotheses, outcomes assessed on older participants, measurements used, and the outcomes attained. We also developed codes to capture aspects of the interventions, including the sources of recruitment for both the older and younger participants, the type of activity for intergenerational engagement, and the grouping of participants for the activity. Two team members independently reviewed all articles in the Apriceno and Levy review to extract information, achieving 92% interrater reliability across codes. Any remaining discrepancies were resolved in consultation with the full team.

Findings from the re-review

We summarized features of the 88 studies that involved personal contact between older and younger people. Sources of older adult participants included community organizations, nonresidential health settings, residential health settings, and general outreach to the community. Sources of young adult participants included classrooms, courses and training programs, including medical schools, as well as service providers undergoing a training program, like nursing home staff and nurses. Activities the younger and older people engaged in together fell into four categories: arts, games, and leisure; conversation/discussion; teaching/tutoring; and clinical contact. Activities were undertaken in dyads (one older person with one younger person), triads (usually one older person with two younger persons), or participants met in groups (see Table 1). Additional observations are described below.

Table 1.

Features of ageism-reduction programs (N = 88).

Sources of older adults	N	%	Sources of younger adults	N	%	Grouping	N	%	Activity	N	%
Community organizations (senior centers, senior housing communities)	23	26	School/classroom (elementary, high school)	22	25	Dyads	42	48	Art, games, leisure (crafting, drawing, singing, listening to music, playing cognitive games, walking)	21	24
Nonresidential health settings (hospitals, clinics)	8	9	Course/training (undergraduate, graduate students, service providers)	66	75	Triads	4	5	Teaching/tutoring (learning how to use technology, teaching a language)	5	6
Residential health settings (assisted living, nursing homes)	30	34				Group	23	26	Conversation/discussion (life history interview, reminiscence, discussion on assigned topic)	52	59
Outreach to community (flyers, advertisements)	28	32				Not Specified	20	23	Clinical contact (clinical practice, wellness program, nursing care)	16	18
Not specified	7	8							Not specified	2	2

Note. Columns add to more than 88% or 100% because some programs recruited older adults from multiple sources and multiple activities and groupings occurred within one program.

Studies lack systematic description of older participant demographics

Our review revealed that most program descriptions provide little systematic demographic information for older participants, and when reported, descriptive statistics on age, gender, and ethnicity are inconsistently presented. This suggests that older people were not viewed as research participants, merely program participants, The implication of this limitation is that without a full description of older participants, the generalizability of their experiences or outcomes is ambiguous. For example, it is unclear whether the younger participants were interacting with what we might think of as “young-old” older adults or “old-old” older adults, which could mean a different kind of experience for those younger participants.

The downstream consequence of missing demographic data is that researchers lack the information necessary for designing interventions tailored for specific groups. For example, intergenerational contact between young people and healthy older people may have different goals and content compared to a program that brings together young people and residents in long-term care. In our opinion, an intentional program design with articulation of why certain older adults are included and explicit reporting of their demographic and contextual characteristics are critical elements of future intervention development and outcome evaluation.

Recruitment sources of older participants are biased

In contrast to the shortage of demographic information about older adults, most articles included information about the source of recruitment. However, these data also reveal significant limitations in the literature. For example, as seen in Table 1, 34% of the older participants in the interventions reviewed were recruited from residential health facilities, such as nursing homes and assisted living. While these settings are convenient in terms of participant availability and program location, they do not reflect where the majority of older people reside and are not representative of the broader older population in terms of physical and cognitive health, among other characteristics (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, & Committee on the Quality of Care in Nursing Homes, 2022). Further, even within these residential settings, there is great heterogeneity among residents. Knowing only about the place, not about the people, we lose meaningful information. Moreover, although older people in these settings may be important to include in interventions focused on clinical training (i.e., for medical and allied health students), when scholars seek to change general misconceptions about older adults, younger people may benefit more from exposure to older people who reflect a broader range of characteristics, abilities, and life circumstances. Indeed, exposing younger people to a limited (and sometimes quite impaired) group of older adults could have the unintended consequences of confirming negative stereotypes or reinforcing a narrow view of later life.

Another common source of recruitment was the broader community, via advertising and flyers to organizations such as senior centers or retirement communities. These sources likely enlist a certain type of older adult, which may or may not be appropriate depending on the goals and design of the intervention. Yet even these sources are not going to include a heterogeneous group of older adults unless the recruitment plan is systematic in monitoring the characteristics of people who are recruited.

Based on our review, younger program participants mostly included students from undergraduate and graduate college courses or training programs (75%), where exposure to older people was part of an educational experience. The remainder were from elementary and high schools. We should note that we often could not identify, for either older and younger participants, an explicit rationale for using these recruitment sources. We suggest that scholars need to align recruitment sources and characteristics of the older participants to the theoretical foundations of their interventions and the goals of their programs. The intentional targeting of recruitment sources, like assisted living facilities or senior centers, may be the first step; but more planful, stratified approaches to recruiting older participants within these settings could lead to more control of participants’ characteristics and broader representation in analyses of outcomes.

Engagement of older participants is highly varied

What older participants are asked to do and how much they are asked to do it ranges widely across the anti-ageism programs. Most programs (59%) engaged older adult participants in discussions, usually in the form of guided conversations with younger people. Other common forms of engagement were art, games, and leisure activities (24% of programs) and clinical contact for training purposes, such as taking health history or practicing communication skills (18% of programs). These interactions were most often in dyads, with one older and one younger participant, with group activities the next most common. In terms of the time requested of the older participants, high variability makes it difficult to summarize. Some programs involve one contact between older and younger participants, whereas other programs request weekly involvement over the course of an academic year.

More specific information about the activities and what happened in the interactions between the younger and older participants is lacking. It may be important to know how the nature of the activity (an art project versus a life review) or the level of engagement (dyads versus group) affects outcomes achieved. Also, these decisions about activities and duration should be driven by conceptual foundations regarding the interventions. For example, an arts-based intervention could involve many kinds of media, and scholars should be clear about why they have chosen visual art versus music versus dance, each of which has different demands and creative processes. Our point here is that different types and amounts of activities have the potential to affect program outcomes, and scholars would enhance the rigor of work in this field by articulating clear connections between targeted outcomes and program elements.

Program aims and outcomes for older participants are left out

Of the 88 anti-ageism interventions that directly engaged older adults, only 13 (15%) assessed outcomes on the older participants (listed in Supplementary Table 1, see online supplementary material). For us, this low number was a surprise and signaled a missed opportunity. To understand more about the outcomes assessed and achieved for the older participants, we summarized this subset of 13 studies. Seven of these studies described study aims but without hypotheses regarding the older participants, three articulated hypotheses, and three assessed outcomes for the older participants in the absence of study aims or hypotheses about them. As examples of study aims, Belgrave (2011) set out to examine the effects of a music-based intergenerational program on older participants’ interactions with and attitudes toward elementary-age children, as well as their self-perceived psychosocial well-being. Xaverius and Mathews (2004) aimed to evaluate the impact of intergenerational activities on older participants’ engagement and expressiveness levels. As examples of hypotheses, Carcavilla et al. (2020) predicted that their program would increase positive emotions and reduce negative ones among older adults and younger adults and would improve older adults’ self-esteem and emotional well-being. Chua et al. (2013) hypothesized that participants would show more positive change in intergroup anxiety (i.e., less anxiety) toward the other age group.

Most of these studies (9/13) targeted attitudes and feelings toward younger people as an outcome for older adults. Yet, four of the studies did not articulate program aims to change the attitudes of the older participants toward the younger, and they only assessed outcomes related to the older participants’ psychosocial status. Of the nine targeting ageist attitudes, six studies also targeted psychosocial outcomes. Psychosocial outcomes for older participants included self-esteem, generativity, life satisfaction, depression, feelings of usefulness, and social connection.

Despite the focus on outcomes for older adults in these 13 studies, we nonetheless observed the lack of a clearly articulated conceptual rationale for both study aims and outcomes regarding older participants. Exceptions included references to intergroup contact theory and the principles of optimal conditions of contact to support change in attitudes (Allport, 1954; Chua et al., 2013; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004; Pettigrew, 1998). Hwang et al. (2014) used the Theory of Caring to support the design of an intervention for younger people interacting with nursing home residents and the outcomes specified. However, in most studies, the theoretical foundations for older participants’ outcomes were not discussed, and this is a major weakness that merits attention going forward.

Assessment and measurements merit attention

To gather information from the older participants, two of the 13 studies used a qualitative approach, employing open-ended questions. For example, in the study by Dorfman et al. (2003), post-intervention questions included, “What do you think you contributed to the student with whom you were working? What do you think the student with whom you were working contributed to you?” One observational study involved momentary time sampling procedures where observers captured the expressiveness and engagement of older participants as they interacted with young children (Xaverius & Mathews, 2004). Ten studies included a disparate set of standardized assessment instruments, alongside closed-ended and open-ended questions that varied across studies.

When assessing attitudes and feelings toward younger people, measurement tools were diverse and included Age Group Evaluation Description Inventory, Elder-Child Interaction Analysis, Elderly Perception about Children, and others that were modified for study purposes, such as a modified Fear of Old People Scale. When assessing psychosocial outcomes, commonly used gerontological measures, like the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Lubben Social Network Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, Loyola Generativity, World Health Organization Quality of Life, and Philadelphia Geriatric Center Moral Scale were employed.

In sum, there is much variation in approaches to document the outcomes experienced by older participants, and this variation limits cross-study comparisons. Moreover, measures are often developed or modified for study purposes. Follow-up intervals are highly variable and often only include one post-intervention assessment. Additionally, older participants’ perceptions are rarely captured qualitatively, and feedback regarding potential negative effects is seldom solicited. Overall, measurement standards need to be elevated to enhance the reliability and validity of findings.

Promising findings warrant stronger evaluation approaches

Finally, we were pleased that most of the pre–post test comparisons indicated positive change for the older participants. Null findings were noted less commonly, and in one case, negative effects were noted [i.e., increased anxiety about younger people, but authors suggested caution regarding this finding, given no statistical tests were possible due to sample constraints (Andreoletti & Howard, 2018)]. On their face, these results suggest positive effects for intergenerational programs. In fact, Lee et al. (2020) have suggested that benefits to older participants in intergenerational programs in general may be underestimated. This observation may be relevant to anti-ageism interventions as well.

However, there are notable weaknesses in research designs. For example, just over half of the 13 studies employed a comparison condition. Longer term effects beyond the end of the program are rarely captured. Effects sizes are typically not discussed, and in some studies insufficient data are provided to calculate them. Clearly, evaluation efforts could be more rigorous to make sure conclusions are replicable. This rigor will come from designs that incorporate comparison conditions; comparison of baseline assessment to post-tests over longer follow-up times; and the use of mixed methods to quantitatively and qualitatively capture the experiences of older participants (Lee et al., 2020).

Checking out the newer literature

We are aware that the Apriceno and Levy’s review article included publications through September 15, 2021. To verify that our observations are consistent with the most recent literature on anti-ageism interventions, we followed the search methods outlined by Apriceno and Levy as closely as possible, focusing on studies published from September, 2021 through August 2025. The updated search identified 958 articles, of which 597 duplicates were removed. Of the remaining 361 articles, 333 were excluded as irrelevant, leaving 28 for full-text review. Following the application of eligibility criteria, 14 articles were excluded, resulting in the inclusion of 14 studies (see Supplementary Table 1 for the list of these articles, see online supplementary material). We then examined the variables of interest within these studies. We concluded that our observations held–older adults are included in the interventions, but they are not given much attention. They are not well characterized in the program descriptions, and their outcomes are not usually assessed.

Of the 14 articles, three assessed outcomes of the older participants. Kirk et al. (2023) focused on social isolation of the older participants. Using a five-point rating scale on a single item, the large majority of older participants indicated that the program increased their sense of social connection. Two other studies (Bai et al., 2023; Counts et al., 2022) used post-intervention qualitative interviews and thematic analysis to describe the older adults’ perception of program effects, which included enhanced self-worth, generativity, improvement in understanding of young people, and reduced boredom and loneliness. In sum, this newer literature supports our observations that attention to research questions, hypotheses, theoretical bases for older adult psychosocial outcomes and standardized measures remain limited.

Observations and implications

Interpersonal contact between younger and older people is at the heart of many ageism reduction interventions, and prior research suggests that these programs are effective at improving attitudes toward aging and older adults and increasing knowledge about and comfort with older people. Older adults are essential elements of these interventions, with evidence that programs that include contact between older and younger participants are more effective than programs without this component (Apriceno & Levy, 2023; Burnes et al., 2019). Despite calls for increased attention to older participants (Lytle et al., 2020), surprisingly little attention has been given to the experiences and outcomes of the older people who participate in these programs. Older people are viewed as “mechanisms” for benefiting younger people (Lee et al., 2020, p. 17). In a sense, they are being utilized to achieve outcomes targeted for other participants. This situation strikes us as acceptable in some ways: older people engage in these programs willingly and have an opportunity for meaningful engagement with younger people and sometimes with one another. (In fact, older participants are more often “volunteers” than younger participants, who are typically involved because of a school or training exercise where their participation may not be discretionary.) However, the lack of attention to older participants is a missed opportunity and a shortcoming of current programming and research. If anti-ageism program developers and evaluators gave more conceptual and empirical attention to the older participants in these programs, we believe there may be greater benefits for people across all generations.

As we go forward in this scholarship, it is useful to remember that these programs are a subset of intergenerational programs more generally. For over 20 years, scholars focusing on intergenerational programming have pushed for the same kinds of rigor we are suggesting–research grounded firmly in theory, careful attention to outcomes for all age groups involved, and the use of sound outcome measures (Jarrott, 2005, 2011; Kuehne, 2003; Kuehne & Kaplan, 2001). We need to heed calls to use well-articulated theory to support research aims, clarify outcomes specified for older participants, ensure that anticipated effects align logically with the types and amount of engagement of the older participants, and use measures with robust psychometric properties. We offer several additional suggestions as gerontologists further develop this applied knowledge base.

Most generally, we encourage scholars to elevate attention to older participants in intergenerational anti-ageism interventions, recognizing the benefits that older people might experience from program participation. Further, it is possible that more positive experiences by older participants will improve the outcomes experienced by younger participants. A rising tide lifts all boats, as the idiom goes.

We believe it is important for scholars to document any negative experiences of older participants to avoid unintended consequences. For example, a life review discussion may create uncomfortable feelings that remain after the conversation is over, or a disrespectful younger participant could reinforce ageism toward younger people. We need to be open to the idea that not everyone benefits, or benefits in the same ways or to the same degree. Intergenerational scholars have long pointed out that outcomes experienced by older participants in the same program can vary (Jarrott, 2011). A recent theoretical perspective offered by Ayalon (2025) suggests that the experience of older participants in anti-ageism intervention may depend on the participant’s self-identification as an older person as well as their internalized ageism.

Our findings reveal a wide range of activities but no evidence that certain activities produce better outcomes than others. Prior work suggests that program novelty may engage healthier older adults but discourage participation of frailer participants (Jarrott et al., 2021). Participatory co-design offers a promising strategy to address this challenge, as it enables meaningful participation from older participants as co-designers in selecting activities and formats (Cheung et al., 2023; Jessen et al., 2018). Further, older persons in facilitator roles could increase comfort and engagement of older participants (Steward et al., 2025). In these regards, potential harm to older adults might be mitigated and outcomes for younger and older participants enhanced.

Outcomes focused on older participants’ attitudes toward younger people are important, as we know that anti-youth bias abounds in our society. Several of the studies included in our review articulated these potential outcomes for older adults. Going forward, outcomes related to ageist attitudes are worthy of increased attention. Researchers can continue to build on the conceptual foundations of intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998) and the PEACE model to support ageism reduction outcomes among older adults toward younger people and to identify conditions of exposure to maximize benefit to participants (Levy, 2018). Further, in addition to intergroup considerations, the concept of intragroup ageism offers insights about how older people are biased toward themselves as well as same-aged peers; and intergroup programming may reduce both this other-directed and self-directed ageism within the older age group (Ayalon, 2025). In sum, we know that ageism is perpetuated in both directions: younger toward older and older toward younger (Francioli & North, 2021). The aims of reducing ageist attitudes toward younger people and toward self, expanding older adults’ knowledge about the younger generation, and increasing motivation to interact with younger people should be elevated in these interventions with the goal of promoting a more collaborative society across all age groups.

We also encourage systematic attention to psychosocial outcomes for the older participants, including self-esteem, positive affect, and generativity. As seen in the studies reviewed here, theoretical foundations to justify these outcomes are rarely articulated, which is also true for the larger literature on intergenerational programming. On the infrequent occasions when theories are invoked in the intergenerational programming literature, the most common are Allport’s intergroup contact theory and human development theory, particularly Erikson’s theory of life course development (Jarrott 2011; Kuehne & Melville, 2014). We can also draw on Erikson’s model where the development of trust and generativity depends on forming meaningful relationships with individuals from other age groups (Erikson, 1982). Anti-ageism programs can certainly encourage these relationships. As another example, if sustained engagement is involved, the theoretical foundations that support the benefits of volunteering become relevant. The social model of health promotion suggests that volunteering produces health through social engagement, cognitive stimulation and physical activity, all of which could be parts of ageism-reduction programs (Fried et al., 2004).

To advance the field, psychosocial outcomes need to correspond to the nature of the intergenerational activity, the developmental needs of participants, and the duration of the program. From our perspective, relevant psychosocial constructs (like self-esteem and generativity) and their measurement (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Loyola Generativity Scale) abound in the gerontology literature. The challenge lies in determining which outcomes are theoretically justified and realistically achievable, given the nature of the engagement and the conceptual foundation underlying those outcomes. In sum, we should be asking, what psychosocial outcomes are realistic and on what conceptual grounds?

We also suggest that anti-ageism programs expose younger participants to older adults along the full continuum of health and functioning. An overreliance on nursing home and assisted living settings limits contact with community dwelling older people. It is not known if exposure to older adults at various levels of health and functioning affects outcomes. We were encouraged to see more attention in recent articles to the characteristics of the older participants. There were comments about the potential reinforcement of stereotypes if only older adults with substantial impairments were included; the importance of intentionally recruiting older participants based on program goals; and the need for tailoring interventions on the basis of older participants capacities and interests (Bartlett, et al., 2021; Cheung et al., 2023; Counts et al., 2022; Holt et al., 2025).

In conclusion, knowledge about ageism has grown substantially in the last decade, and anti-ageism interventions are concurrently being implemented, and evaluated. Exposure between younger and older people is central to most of the interventions, and attention is focused on the younger participants. We acknowledge that this focus is important, given the pervasiveness of interpersonal ageism toward older people and the fact that ageism also hurts younger people. But moving forward, our scholarship needs to be more balanced by focusing on older program participants as well. Improving older people’s attitudes toward younger generation merits our efforts as our society becomes increasingly age diverse. Additionally, intergenerational engagement affects older people in ways beyond ageist attitudes, and we need a more systematic consideration of benefits in multiple domains. To advance this agenda for anti-ageism programs, we must increase and improve our conceptual and empirical focus on the older participants. We all can understand the value of older participants in anti-ageism programs. Now, we need to value older people in our scholarship on these interventions.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at The Gerontologist online.

Funding

This work was partially supported by a grant from RRF Foundation for Aging #2023251.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Data availability

This Forum article presents an argument-based consideration of the current literature. Thus, there is no preregistration. Our materials documenting our process are available upon request.