Reducing Ageism: Which Interventions Work?

Prejudice against older persons is a prevalent, but underresearched problem. This is surprising considering that age is one of the three “primitive categories” by which people instantly categorize someone (race and gender are the other two).¹ One reason for the lack of attention to ageism may be that ageism is so institutionalized in society.² In addition to poisoning the attitudes of younger persons about older persons, ageism has been demonstrated to have real, significant health consequences for older people.³ Curiously, even though research is still relatively nascent on the tie between ageism and negative health effects for older persons, there is little consensus on the best ways to reduce ageism. This is an important piece of the puzzle because if we could ascertain the best way to reduce ageism, then we could significantly influence the physical and psychological well-being of older persons. The researchers in the present study assessed the available articles on ageism interventions via a meta-analysis to determine whether there are any clear paths to effective reductions in ageism.

The researchers identified 63 ageism intervention studies that fit their criteria for examination, with a total sample of 6124 participants. Intervention methods included intergenerational contact, education, and a combination of intergenerational contact and education, lasting an average of 12 weeks. Ageism interventions showed the strongest effect on changing ageist attitudes, knowledge about aging (i.e., dispelling myths about aging), and increasing comfort with one’s own aging. Interestingly, the ageism interventions had no significant influence on one’s anxiety about aging or one’s desire to work with older adults. The combination intervention had the strongest impact. In another fascinating finding, the data showed a significant moderating effect of gender, with the interventions having a stronger effect on women. The authors note that these results should be interpreted with caution because of the methodological shortcomings of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Specifically, 58 of the 63 studies used a quasi-experimental design. Going forward, research on ageism interventions should, where possible, use randomized control experiments. This would allow researchers to make a more compelling case for the effectiveness of the interventions employed in their study relative to studies using quasi-experimental designs.

Nevertheless, the conclusions from this meta-analysis are indeed interesting and provide a good jumping-off point for future researchers. Considering the well-documented, pernicious, and direct physical and psychological damage ageism has on older people, it is of the utmost importance that a concerted effort be directed at clarifying the most effective ways to reduce ageism. I offer some promising avenues for researchers to explore in that regard.

SUGGESTED INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

In a recent article, Nelson⁴ suggested three ways to reduce ageism. These mirror closely the general intervention approaches examined by the authors of their meta-analysis. First, society needs to be educated about the myths of aging. Aging needs to be reframed as a time of positive activity, continued growth, and optimism for the future.⁵ One interesting approach uses documentary theater and postplay question and answer with the audience to educate them about aging myths.⁶ Such an innovative approach can be a powerful, “soft sell” avenue for positive attitude change.

Second, society needs to foster continued and positive family relations and social support. Such relationships act as a buffer against negative self-views and negative physical and psychological outcomes in older adults. Research has demonstrated that intergenerational contact greatly reduces the chances of children developing ageist attitudes.

Third, psychologists and health care workers need to be trained and educated about ageism and about the myths of aging. It is vital that age prejudice and stereotypes about aging not take root in those who work with the elderly, as they have obvious direct negative effects on how those professionals treat (or don’t treat) and interact with older adults. This ageism training and education becomes even more important as, by some estimates, some 3.5 million geriatric health workers are needed by 2030 to meet the rapidly expanding population of adults older than 65 years.⁷

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the methodological shortcomings of the studies examined in their meta-analysis, the conclusions the authors reach mirror those of other recent ageism intervention articles. Ageism is best reduced by intergenerational contact, education, and training and education for physical and mental health workers who work with older adults. Going forward, researchers should focus on these areas with creative interventions and explore their effectiveness in solid randomized control experiments. Doing this will help establish best practices to help move our society away from fear and anxiety about aging to the promotion of aging as a time of continued positive growth. These practices and interventions will result in older adults experiencing better health outcomes, greater social support, and better views of themselves.