COUNSELING CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
HAVE COLLEGE STUDENT
ATTITUDES
TOWARD OLDER PEOPLE CHANGED?
Susan J. Schwalb, William E.
Sedlacek,
& Sharon M. Jones
Research Report # 4-89
Computer time for this report has been provided by the Computer Science Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
COUNSELING CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
HAVE COLLEGE STUDENT
ATTITUDES TOWARD OLDER PEOPLE CHANGED
Susan J. Schwab, William E.
Sedlacek, and Sharon M. Jones
Research Report # 4-89
Summary
The
attitudes of freshmen toward older people were assessed in a 1979 study using
the Situational Attitude Scale- Age (SASA). This same measure was used
again in 1988 on a similar sample of freshman. The combined samples consisted
of 412 students; 51% female and 49% male. Results were analyzed using
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) at the .05 level with year (1979 vs.
1988) and gender as main effects. In seven out of ten of the situations, the
samples responded differently depending on the form of the SAS that they
received. The results indicate that older people are still not equally accepted
in many situations. Suggestions for improved student education and programming
are discussed.
In
recent years, increased attention has been paid toward older people and their
role in our society. Much of the discussion has focused on an increased
sensitivity toward age issues. Yet popular media expose us to older people on a
daily basis, representing them most often as negative and stereotypic. Older
people are underrepresented in commercials and when they are used, they are.
portrayed as "young-old", rarely bald or wrinkled. When
portrayed as characters, they are given nondescript roles. Only one percent of
television portrayals provide an overt positive view of being old (Hiemstra,
Goodman, Middlemies, Tosco, & Ziegler, 1983).
The
number of people in the 60+ age group in 1986 was 40 million, representing 17%
of the U.S. population. This group has grown by 13% between 1980 and 1986 as
compared to a growth rate of only 5% for people under 60 (Fowles, 1987).
Increased representation of older people in our society has coincided with an
.increase in researching attitudes toward older people (Celio. Sedlacek, &
Schlossberg, 1.97'7; Peabody, & Sedlacek, 1982). As a result of the
increased attention toward age issues, it is possible that age stereotyping has
declined. It is also possible that it has merely become more difficult to
document.
Prejudice
toward older people has been studied in a variety of settings. often in job
interviewing situations, prejudiced attitudes are exposed. Gordon, Rozelle, and
Baxter
2
(1988) had subjects rate male and female job
applicants. The applicants were role playing unbeknown to the subjects. When
subjects were held accountable for their impressions, they decreased their
ratings of older applicants and increased their ratings of younger applicants.
Similarly, Singer (1986) found that subjects rated a 30 year old man on a
variety of work dimensions in five different professions.
Further
evidence exists for age-associated prejudice. In his review of the literature
on perceptions of old people, McTavish (1971) found that they are generally
viewed as ill, tired, mentally slower, not sexual, forgetful, withdrawn,
unproductive, grouchy, and defensive.
Kite & Johnson (1988) did a meta-analysis of the literature through
1985, and found that the attitudes held toward ‘older’ people were more
negative than attitudes toward young adults.
Concurrently
we have experienced increased enrollment of older students on college campuses
(Levin, 1988; Martin, 1988). Work done on college populations has also found
negative attitudes toward older people.
Peabody and Sedlacek (1982) used the Situational Attitude Scale to
identify hidden attitudes of college students toward older people in a variety
of situations. Their results indicated that the most negative attitudes were
expressed in close social situations with older people. Academic situations
yielded slightly less negative attitudes toward other people. Levin, (1988)
found a strong and
3
consistant age stereotyping key college students
against older people when rating a specific male target.
With
the increase in research on ageism, it has been more apparent that `older
people' is a difficult tern to define. Celio, Sedlacek, and Schlossberg (197'7)
noted that this term does not refer to a unitary construct. Therefore research.
in this area becomes confusing in that it may not always be dealing with the
same idea of older people. Typically terms such as 'old' and 'elderly' are not
useful because they have varying connotations associated with them.
Also of concern. is the limited scope of the research in this area. Research has involved small specific populations or has concerned negative attitudes in limited situations. If ageism is a widespread concern, than a broader look at the issue is necessary. For this reason, a study concerning how attitudes evolve over time is meaningful. A look at whether negative attitudes persist over time provides are understanding of how pervasive the problem of ageism is.
The
version of the SAS-A used in the present study is a revision of the
original instrument (Celio, Sedlacek, & Schlossberg, 1977). Ten situations
relevant to college student life were created. For each situation, ten bipolar
sets of descriptive words follow. Students reacted to all ten pairs of words in
each situation raking a total of 100 responses.
Tyro separate forms were developed (see Appendix).
4
The forms differed only on whether a specific age eras attached to the situation.. Form A was the control situation with no specific age mentioned. Form B was experimental in that a specific age was mentioned in each situation.
The
data were collected in 1973 as part of a previous study (Peabody, &
Sedlacek, 198,23 and again in 1988. Data were collected during the summer
freshman orientation program for both years. The total sample consisted of 412
students; 51% female, 49% male with a mean age of 18 years old. Forms were
randomly assigned to students. Thus any difference in mean response would be
clue to the insertion of age in the situation since all other aspects of the
measure and method were neutral.
Results
were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (NOVA) at the . f5 level
with year ( 1979 vs. 1988) and gender
as main effects.
The reliability of the SAS-A (coefficient alpha) ranged from .89 to .65 across the situations with a median reliability of .81 . Table I shows the results of F tests by year, gender, and form. Table 2 :shows the means for each of a these situations by year, gender, axed form. In the majority of situations (6 of 10 in 1979, 7 of 10 in 1988 ) students held negative attitudes toward the age specific older people.
5
The three situations showed effects by year. Regardless of form or gender, students in 1988 tended to feel more positive toward situations 8 (breaking into line), 9 (applying for a job), and ltd (competition for a date) than did students in 1979.
In
seen out of ten of the situations, the students responded differently depending
ova the form that they had. Sic of these situations indicated that students had
more negative attitudes toward older people: a new 50 year old roommate, a 35
year old blind date, a 50 year old lab partner, a 30 year old student trying
out for intramurals, a 40 year old pledge of a sorority/fraternity and a 30
year old study partner. Only in the situation of a 65 year old breaking into
line, were attitudes more positive toward the older person.
Gender
differences were found in three situations. Females held more negative views
toward being assigned a study partner and toward a blind date while males held
more negative views of someone trying out for their intramural team.
Effects of Gender by Form were significant for two situations: a 40 year old pledges your fraternity or sorority and someone breaking into line at the movies. Ira the first situation, females were more positive than males when age was not noted, but when reacting to an older person pledging their fraternity/sorority, females responded more negatively than
6
males. In the neutral
situation of having someone break into line at the movies, females were less
tolerant than males. However, when the older person broke
into line, females were more tolerant.
The
interactions of Form by Year and Gender by Year were not significant.
Overall
attitudes of college students toward older people were generally negative in
both the 1?9 and 1986 samples. Most situations found college students to have
different attitudes toward older people than toward an age unspecified person:
Students felt negatively toward older persons in academic situations (study
group arid 1 lab partners) as well as in social situations. Only the situation
of breaking in line resulted in more positive attitudes for older people,
indicating that students felt that this situation was appropriate fair a 65
year old. In the situations of orientation advisor and ,fob applicant,
attitudes dial not differ for older people, perhaps indicating that age is not
salient in these situations with the specific ages stated in the situations.
While students in 1985 were mere positive toward the situations regardless of
form or gender, the differences on form and the lack of form by year
interactions are the findings that .lead us to conclude that students hold the
same basically negative attitudes toward older people over the period studied.
7
females differed from males in three of the social situations. This pattern seems to indicate that social norms are different for males and females. The groups had different situations that were significantly more negative for them. For example, females were more threatened by the blind date situation, whereas males were more negative toward someone joining their intramural team.
The
generally negative assessment of older people has implications for the college
community as a whole. With the increased population of older college students
on campus, every effort should be made to create an environment for 'older'
students that is at least equal to that of traditional college students.
Amir1963) in his summary of the literature on the effects of contact among different
groups concludes that contact alone does not necessarily reduce prejudice.
'here must be some attempt to provide positive interactions in which both
groups feel they have something to gain.
Though
there is increased publicity and concern over the rights of 'older' person’s in
our society= attitudes do not appear to lie changing. Awareness of ageism alone
without education or programming to increase sensitivity, as these results
indicate, does not effect change. College communities need to make greater
efforts to educate the general campus population about ageism through workshops
and within regular coursework. Courses that view ageism as one of many 'isms',
8
provide insight into the overall nature of prejudice
and therefore enlighten students to the concerns of `older' people as well as
other oppressed groups. This approach has been shown to tae effective in.
orientation programs (Sedlacek, Troy, & Chapman, 1976) and in classroom
settings (Roper Sedlacek, 1955).
Other concrete approaches to combating 'isms' are found in Sedlacek and Brooks ( 1976) who outline a series of steps in dealing with prejudices. These steps include information, assessment of attitudes, role playing, examining sources of attitudes and generating experiences that reduce ageism such as maintaining a diverse student. population to allow for natural contact among groups, exposing students to accomplished older persons to enhance an. understanding of the potential of older people in our society, and hosting conferences and workshops on the subject allowing for follow-up sessions for student reactions to the programs. These kinds of active approaches must be employed if we would like to see college student attitudes improve toward 'older' people.
With
most prejudices, people have the leisure of never having to confront their
negative views. Ii` they choose, they can avoid the issue forever. However,
that we will all eventually age means that at some time in our lives, we will
be forced to deal with the issues of aging. University
10
Amir,
y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin,
71, 319-342.
Carney,
F. T., & Sedlacek, W. E. ( 1985) . Attitudes
of young adults toward children. (Research Rep. No. 4-85),
College Parks University of Maryland, Counseling Center.
Carter.
F. T., White, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. 8. (1985). White student attitudes
toward Blacks: Implications for Black student recruitment end retention.
(Research Rep. No. 4-85) College Park: University of Maryland, Counseling
Center.
Cello,
M. B., Sedlacek, W. F., & .Schlossberg, N. K. (1977) . The development
of a measure of attitudes toward age. (Research Rep. No. 8-77),
College Park: University of Maryland, Counseling Center.
Social
Psychology
16, 771-785.
Evaluation
in Guidance,
15, 201-209.
Fowles,
D. G. (3987 ) . The numbers game. Ate, 356,
44-45.
Gordon,
R. A., Rozelle, R. I., & Baxter, J. C. (1988 ) . The effect of applicant
sage, jobs level, and accountability on
11
then
evaluation of job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 41, 20-33.
Hiemstra,
R., Goodman, M., Middlemiss, M. A., Vosco, R., and Ziegler, N. (1983). How
older persons are portrayed in television advertising: Implications for
educators. Educational Gerontology, 9, 17.1-7.21.
Kite,
M. E., Johnson, B. T. (1988). Attitudes toward older and younger adults: A meta-analysis.
Psychology and Aging 3, 233-244.
Levin,
E. L. (7.986). A support group for midlife students reentering college. Journal
of College student Personnel, 27. 371-372.
Levin,
fit. C. (1988). Age stereotyping. Research on Aging 10, 134-148.
Martin,
J.Y. (1988). Meeting nontraditional students halfway. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 29, 369
-371.
McTavish,
D. G. (1971 ) . Perceptions of old people: A review of research methods and
findings. Gerontologist, 11, 90-101.
Peabody,
S. A., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1982) . Attitudes of younger university students
toward. older students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 140-143.
Roper,
L. D., & Sedlacek, V. E. (1988) . Student affairs professionals in academic
roles: A course on racism.
12
National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 26, 27-32.
Roscoe,
B. (1985). Social issues as social problems: Adolescent's perceptions. Adolescence,
20, 377-383.
Sedlacek,
W. E., & Brooks, G. C. Jr. (1976). Racism
in American Education: A Model for Chi. Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
Sedlacek,
W. E., Troy, W. G. & Chapman, T. H. (1976). An evaluation of three methods
of racism-sexism training. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 55, 196-198.
Singer, M. S. (1986). Age stereotypes as a function of
profession. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 691-692.
|
Table 1: Probabilities of
F values by Year, Form, and gender For Each SAS-A Situation |
|
|
Situation
* |
Effects Significant ** |
|
1. New roommate |
F |
|
2. blind date |
F,G |
|
3. lab partner |
F |
|
4. orientation advisor |
none |
|
5. intramurals |
F,G |
|
6. new pledge |
F,GXF |
|
7. study partner |
F,G |
|
8. movie ticket line |
Y,F,GXF |
|
9. job competitor |
Y
|
|
10. date competition |
Y
|
*
see Appendix for complete situations
**
Y = year, F = form, G= gender
|
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations by Year,
Form, and Gender For SAS-A Situations |
||||||||||||||
|
1979 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Form A |
Form B |
||||||||||||
|
*Item No. |
Male |
Female |
Total |
Male |
Female |
Total |
Year Total |
|||||||
|
1 |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|
2 |
26 |
3.99 |
25.56 |
4.78 |
25.77 |
4.41 |
34.4 |
6.02 |
36.09 |
8.8 |
35.3 |
7.64 |
30.12 |
7.9 |
|
3 |
23.57 |
4.82 |
25.62 |
5.98 |
24.64 |
5.53 |
30.62 |
6.55 |
32.03 |
7.8 |
31.38 |
7.29 |
28.14 |
7.29 |
|
4 |
24.46 |
5.58 |
22.7 |
4.97 |
23.54 |
5.32 |
26.16 |
6.59 |
27.06 |
6.88 |
26.64 |
6.73 |
25.16 |
6.28 |
|
5 |
25.53 |
4.17 |
25.29 |
4.53 |
25.4 |
4.34 |
24.18 |
5.41 |
24.7 |
6.52 |
24.46 |
6.01 |
24.91 |
5.28 |
|
6 |
24.38 |
5.69 |
21.78 |
6.13 |
23 |
6.03 |
26.57 |
7.47 |
25.35 |
6.33 |
25.92 |
6.88 |
24.53 |
6.63 |
|
7 |
24.7 |
5.76 |
20.8 |
5.54 |
22.67 |
5.95 |
29.41 |
9.29 |
30.38 |
8.29 |
29.93 |
8.73 |
26.48 |
8.36 |
|
8 |
22.14 |
6.17 |
19.78 |
6.88 |
20.91 |
6.62 |
24.14 |
7.81 |
22.62 |
7.3 |
23.34 |
7.55 |
22.17 |
7.2 |
|
9 |
38.25 |
6.01 |
39.26 |
5.17 |
38.78 |
5.58 |
39.8 |
6.81 |
36.18 |
7.48 |
37.87 |
7.37 |
38.3 |
6.57 |
|
10 |
28.57 |
4.68 |
28.08 |
5.52 |
28.31 |
5.12 |
28.92 |
5.87 |
29.1 |
5.92 |
29.05 |
5.87 |
28.69 |
5.52 |
|
|
37.13 |
7.06 |
37.74 |
7.69 |
37.45 |
7.36 |
36.4 |
9.9 |
36.88 |
7.48 |
36.65 |
8.65 |
37.03 |
8.05 |
*
see Appendix for complete situations
This questionnaire measures how people think and feet about a number of social and personal incidents and situations. It is not a test so there are no right or wrong answers. The questionnaire is anonymous so please DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME,
Each item or situation is followed by 10 descriptive word scales. Your task is to select, for each descriptive scale, the rating that best described YOUR feelings toward the item.
happy ABCDE sad
You would indicate the direction and extent of your feelings (e.g. you might select (B) by indicating your choice (B) on your response sheet by blackening in the appropriate space for that word scale. DO NOT MARK ON THE BOOKLET. PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL WORD SCALES.
Sometimes you spay feet as though you had
the same item before on the questionnaire. This wilt not be the case, so DO NOT
LOOK BACK AND FORTH through the items. Do not try to remember how you checked
similar items earlier in the questionnaire. MAKE EACH ITEM A SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT. Respond as honestly as possible without puzzling over
individual items. Respond with your first impression whenever possible.
|
Table 2 (cont.): Means and Standard Deviations by
Year, Form, and Gender For SAS-A Situations |
||||||||||||||
|
1988 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Form A |
Form B |
||||||||||||
|
*Item No. |
Male |
Female |
Total |
Male |
Female |
Total |
Year Total |
|||||||
|
1 |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|
2 |
24.1 |
5.27 |
25.7 |
4.81 |
24.96 |
5.06 |
34.2 |
6.38 |
33.46 |
9.18 |
33.88 |
7.68 |
29.42 |
7.88 |
|
3 |
24.81 |
5.65 |
26.65 |
5.34 |
25.81 |
5.53 |
30.98 |
7.19 |
34.67 |
6.54 |
32.59 |
7.11 |
29.2 |
7.21 |
|
4 |
23.78 |
5.84 |
24.26 |
5.59 |
24.04 |
5.68 |
28.71 |
6.66 |
25.96 |
5.66 |
27.51 |
6.36 |
25.78 |
6.26 |
|
5 |
23.54 |
4.75 |
25.54 |
4.95 |
24.62 |
5.68 |
23.8 |
5.68 |
24.08 |
6.36 |
23.92 |
5.94 |
24.27 |
5.45 |
|
6 |
23.03 |
6.79 |
23.48 |
6.47 |
23.27 |
6.58 |
28.25 |
4.94 |
25.7 |
6.16 |
27.14 |
5.62 |
25.21 |
6.4 |
|
7 |
24.56 |
5.36 |
23.28 |
7.86 |
23.87 |
6.65 |
29.39 |
4.77 |
31.93 |
6.76 |
30.5 |
5.93 |
27.18 |
7.1 |
|
8 |
22.18 |
6.3 |
21.49 |
7.05 |
21.8 |
6.69 |
25.77 |
6.63 |
24.1 |
6.26 |
25.04 |
6.49 |
23.42 |
6.77 |
|
9 |
37.51 |
5.73 |
38.3 |
5.89 |
37.94 |
5.8 |
35.92 |
5.49 |
34.83 |
5.7 |
35.46 |
5.57 |
36.69 |
5.81 |
|
10 |
26.1 |
5.06 |
28.44 |
5.6 |
27.36 |
5.45 |
27.09 |
5.4 |
27 |
4.3 |
27.05 |
4.92 |
27.2 |
5.18 |
|
|
35.71 |
6.7 |
36.11 |
6.47 |
35.94 |
6.47 |
35.03 |
7.27 |
34.02 |
7.45 |
34.59 |
7.32 |
35.26 |
6.93 |
*
see Appendix for complete situations