(Illustration by iStock/Sylverarts)
Ageism is prevalent across the world, and the United States is no exception. Americans’ tendencies to exclude and undervalue older people are well documented. Research has found negative attitudes about older people among Americans of all ages, even among older people themselves. One 2009 Pew study found significant differences between younger people’s negative views of aging and the actual experiences of older people. In every area of the survey—including illness, memory loss, inability to drive, and sexual activity—younger adults predicted that they would have more negative experiences as they aged than older adults reported.
Ageism—stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination based on a person’s age—is built into American culture. Ageist beliefs are embedded in the media we consume, the greeting cards we buy, and the jokes we tell. Ageism also manifests in the insufficient attention to the abuse of older adults and pervasive employment discrimination.
Today, the COVID-19 pandemic is pushing Americans’ cultural bias against older people to new heights. We’ve seen leaders suggest that grandparents are expendable in the name of economy. The hashtag #BoomerRemover emerged and started trending in mid-March as a way to mark and make light of ageist comments about the pandemic. And Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, had to repeatedly address public opinion that COVID-19 was not a serious concern because of initial public beliefs that it affected only older people.
The current discourse also frames older people as a monolithic group, failing to acknowledge their demographic, health, and functional diversity. While we’ve heard personal accounts of younger people who have fallen ill and stories about those who have lost employment, the media’s coverage of older adults has tended to use very different framing. The coverage often presents depersonalized statistics without stories or images of actual people. Stories about older people have featured the blank façade of a nursing home, and faceless body bags being taken out of hospitals and care facilities. These portraits dehumanize older adults and add oxygen to society’s tendency to exclude them from our communities, social policies, and systems of support.
In our own research at the Frameworks Institute on how people think about aging, older people, and elder abuse, we’ve found that people quickly and unconsciously draw a line between older people and the “rest of us.” This “us vs. them” mindset isn’t restricted to how we think about older people and the problems it creates; it contributes to a range of social issues, including racial and economic discrimination. But in all cases, it saps support for the inclusion of certain groups in public policies by creating a zero-sum mentality: More for “those” or “them” means less for “me” and “mine.” Some research also suggests that, in difficult times, people’s bias for and positive feelings about individuals in their “in-group” (people like them) heighten while their positive feelings about “out-group” members diminishes.
We’ve also seen a strong and unquestioned association between aging, decline, and deterioration. Participants in our research focused on the idea that as a person enters their older years, the attributes and capacities of the body and mind—those seen as making someone a full person—fade rapidly and inevitably. The language of “loss” and “breaking down” dominates people’s conversations about aging. These tendencies, paired with prevailing narratives about limited resources and the need to make hard decisions in the face of COVID-19, could help explain the increase in “othering” older people.
The current surge in ageism has already dangerously impacted people’s actions and decisions. It has emboldened younger generations to disregard shelter-in-place orders and led people to seriously consider taking older people off of ventilators so that this equipment could be used for COVID-19 patients. We can see the effects of ageism in under-resourced nursing homes and in insurance companies only partially covering the care they provide. Left unchecked, ageism will continue to have long-term, negative impacts—including elder abuse, depression, and early mortality—that discriminate against older adults and eventually affect us all.
Changing the Way We Talk and Think About Aging Now
It’s clear we need to change the way society thinks and talks about aging, and there’s great opportunity to do it now. In 2014, the FrameWorks Institute launched a study using theory and methods from a range of social science disciplines. Our more than 12,000 research participants participated in online survey experiments, one-on-one interviews, or focus groups. Based on careful analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data from this research, we developed a reliable, research-based set of recommendations for framing aging issues and addressing ageism. We believe the following strategies can help advocates across all sectors stem the tide of ageism in the COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 contexts.
1. Appeal to the value of justice. First, people working in sectors like aging, health equity, and housing need to use values—those enduring ideals that guide our thinking and behavior—to help people see why ageism matters. Through quantitative online experiments and focus-group research, we found that messages focused on justice—the idea that justice requires that we recognize all members of society as equal, yet we do not treat older people as equal members—were effective. They both increased people’s support for policies designed to support older people, such as identifying and preventing financial abuse against older adults, and dampened “us vs. them” thinking.
The National Center on Elder Abuse has used these findings to create tools like Public Service Announcement videos and social media guides to remind policy makers, health-care professionals, and the general public that ageism is a justice issue and that allowing it to persist is an injustice society must stand against. Other leaders in the aging field are sharing tip sheets, and creating venues for communicators to share examples and support one another.
2. Define ageism and show people how to address it. Our research also showed that defining ageism, providing concrete examples of what it looks like and how it affects older people (for example, workplace discrimination), and showing what people can do to address it (for example, providing more opportunities for older people to contribute) also shifted people’s ageist attitudes.
Many advocacy organizations and coalitions nationwide have effectively used this framing strategy, and explanations of ageism have found their way into op-eds, campaigns, and institutional policy. In a 2017 Allure essay, author Michelle Lee took issue with the term “anti-aging," writing, “Whether we know it or not, we’re subtly reinforcing the message that aging is a condition we need to battle.” With a few exceptions, these types of discussions of ageism haven’t been a part of the public discourse during COVID-19, but they need to be.
3. Create a sense of solidarity. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that using language that “other-izes” older people—such as “they,” “them,” and “those” pronouns—reinforced paternalistic attitudes toward older people and was highly unproductive. Replacing “they” or “them” with “we” and “us” counters ageist thinking. Instead of implying that aging happens to someone else (“what older people need”), for example, we can use more-inclusive wording (“what we need when we’re older”), and thus convey a sense of shared stake and common purpose.
The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society actually changed its style guide to prohibit the use of “othering” terms like “the elderly” or “seniors,” and recommended the use of “older adults” in its articles and publications. The American Medical Association and American Psychological Association have made similar changes to their style guides. A larger range of communicators, in a broader set of communication channels, need to follow suit.
The way we portray and support older members of our society is a moral, social, and economic issue that concerns us all. Aging issues are front and center today, but are often framed in a way that increases rather than addresses society’s ageism. Advocates need to shape messaging so that it appeals to justice, illustrates what ageism looks like, and uses inclusive language. Doing so will help policy makers, journalists, and the public recognize that older people—like all people—can bring value to communities everywhere and deserve to be included.
Support SSIR’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.
Help us further the reach of innovative ideas. Donate today.
Read more stories by Nat Kendall-Taylor, Aly Neumann & Julie Schoen.