To refer to this page use:
|Abstract:||Ageism research tends to lump “older people” together as one group, as do policy matters that conceptualize everyone over-65 as “senior.” This approach is problematic primarily because it often fails to represent accurately a rapidly growing, diverse, and healthy older population. In light of this, we review the ageism literature, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between the still-active “young-old” and the potentially more impaired “old-old” (Neugarten, 1974). We argue that ageism theory has disproportionately focused on the old-old and differentiate the forms of age discrimination that apparently target each elder subgroup. In particular, we highlight the young-old’s plights predominantly in the workplace and tensions concerning succession of desirable resources; by contrast, old-old predicaments likely center on consumption of shared resources outside of the workplace. For both social psychological researchers and policymakers, accurately subtyping ageism will help society best accommodate a burgeoning, diverse older population.|
|Electronic Publication Date:||7-Jan-2013|
|Citation:||North, Michael S, Fiske, Susan T. (2013). Subtyping Ageism: Policy Issues in Succession and Consumption. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7 (1), 36 - 57. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01042.x|
|Pages:||36 - 57|
|Type of Material:||Journal Article|
|Journal/Proceeding Title:||Social Issues and Policy Review|
Items in OAR@Princeton are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.