Ageism

Abstract

Ageism is prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination directed at people because of their age, most often against older adults. The gerontologist Robert Butler coined the term in 1969, modelling it on racism and sexism, and the construct has since been analysed as an attitude with three components: a cognitive one (age stereotypes), an affective one (age prejudice), and a behavioural one (age discrimination). Research has mapped older adults onto the warmth-competence space of social perception, where they draw pity rather than respect; shown that internalised age stereotypes shape memory, health, and even longevity; and documented ageism as a global public-health problem. This article develops the stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination strands, the instruments that measure each, and the embodiment and life-course mechanisms that connect attitudes to outcomes.

Keywords: ageism, age stereotypes, age discrimination, stereotype embodiment

Ageism is the prejudice a person will almost certainly live to be the target of. Unlike the groups singled out by racism or sexism, the old are a category every ageing person eventually joins, which gives ageism its peculiar structure: it is prejudice against a future version of oneself. The Medical Subject Headings vocabulary files the concept under both prejudice and social discrimination, defining it as “prejudicial attitudes, stereotyping, and discrimination against individuals or groups based on their age.” The term is young by the standards of the attitudes it names. Robert Butler, the first director of the United States National Institute on Aging, introduced it in 1969 to describe the systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, deliberately echoing the words already in use for prejudice by race and sex (Butler, 1969).

What the half-century since has added is structure and evidence. Ageism is now understood as an attitude with the same three components psychologists ascribe to any prejudice: a set of beliefs about the old (the cognitive component, or stereotype), feelings toward them (the affective component, or prejudice proper), and differential treatment of them (the behavioural component, or discrimination) (Nelson, 2005). The sections below take the construct in turn—placing it among the forms of prejudice, developing the stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination strands, the measures built for each, and the embodiment mechanism through which ageism reaches inside the person it targets and alters their health.

What Ageism Is

Ageism is, most generally, the differential evaluation and treatment of people on the basis of chronological age. In principle it can target the young—dismissing adolescents as reckless, or discounting a junior colleague—but in both ordinary usage and the research literature it refers primarily to bias against older adults, and that is the sense this article develops. MeSH places the descriptor under prejudice and social discrimination, grouping it with the other category-based biases while marking that its target is defined by age rather than race, sex, or ethnicity.

Butler’s original formulation already contained the three elements later work made precise. He described ageism as combining stereotypes about the elderly, prejudicial attitudes toward them, and discriminatory practices against them, reinforced by institutions from mandatory retirement to the design of health care (Butler, 1969). This maps directly onto the tripartite model of attitudes: a belief component, an affective component, and a behavioural component. The value of keeping the three apart is that they dissociate. A person may hold accurate beliefs about age-related decline yet feel no hostility; may feel warmth toward older relatives while discriminating against older job applicants; may endorse egalitarian attitudes while acting on automatic age associations. Todd Nelson emphasised a further peculiarity that sets ageism apart from other prejudices: its target is one’s own future self, so the hostility is, at root, directed at an inevitable stage of one’s own life (Nelson, 2005).

A second distinction runs between other-directed ageism—bias one holds toward other, older people—and self-directed ageism, the internalisation of those same stereotypes as they come to apply to oneself with age. Liat Ayalon and Clemens Tesch-Römer argued that the two are intimately linked: the stereotypes a young person holds about the old become, decades later, the self-concept they inherit, which is why ageism’s effects are so hard to escape (Ayalon & Tesch-Römer, 2017). This article concentrates on the components and mechanisms that the empirical literature has operationalised, but the shared logic—evaluation by age category—is what makes ageism one concept spanning hiring, health care, media, and the private experience of growing old.

Dimensions of Ageism Research

No single field owns ageism. It is studied as a problem in the social psychology of stereotyping, as an attitude to be measured, as an intergenerational and life-course phenomenon, and as a determinant of health and a target for public-health intervention. Each supplies a different question and a different method, and the most useful treatments keep them apart rather than collapsing them into a single complaint about “prejudice against the old.” Table 1 summarises the dimensions, and the sections that follow develop each in turn. Figure 1 shows the warmth-competence space of social perception, from which the distinctive pity directed at older adults is derived.

Table 1

Dimensions of Ageism Research

Stereotype Content and the Elderly

The cognitive component of ageism is a stereotype, and the most influential account of its shape comes from the Stereotype Content Model. Amy Cuddy, Michael Norton, and Susan Fiske showed that social groups are perceived along two near-universal dimensions—warmth (are they friendly, well-intentioned?) and competence (are they capable, effective?)—and that older adults occupy a strikingly consistent position: high in warmth, low in competence. This is the combination the model calls paternalistic, and it elicits pity and sympathy rather than either admiration or contempt. Across the many cultures they surveyed, the elderly stereotype was remarkably stable, a mix of affection and condescension that casts older adults as kindly but incapable (Cuddy, Norton & Fiske, 2005). The danger of a pity stereotype is that its warmth disguises its harm: the same low-competence belief that prompts a helpful hand also justifies exclusion from meaningful work and decisions.

Michael North and Fiske extended the account from descriptive stereotypes (what the old are like) to prescriptive ones (what they ought to do). Their model identifies intergenerational tensions over succession (older adults should make way and cede enviable resources), identity (they should not try to act younger than they are), and consumption (they should not consume more than their share of shared resources such as health care). On this reading, some ageism is driven not by a belief that older adults are incompetent but by younger people’s resentment of them as an obstacle—an “inconvenienced youth” dynamic (North & Fiske, 2012). Figure 1 shows the warmth-competence space, and Demo 1 lets the reader move a group through it and read off the emotion its coordinates predict.

Demo 1 · The warmth × competence space

The Stereotype Content Model places every group on two crossed dimensions and reads a distinct emotion from each quadrant. Set competence and warmth; the group is placed among the four emotional-prototype corners by membership weight w = e^−3d. The elderly stereotype is high-warmth, low-competence — the pity cell.

At C = 0.30, W = 0.80 the elderly stereotype is 0.36 from the pity corner and about 60% pity — warm but seen as incapable, a region of a continuous space rather than a box.

Measuring Age Attitudes and Discrimination

If ageism has three components, each needs its own measure, and the literature has built separate instruments for attitudes and for experienced discrimination. On the attitude side, Mary Kite and Blair Johnson’s early meta-analysis pooled studies comparing evaluations of younger and older targets and confirmed that attitudes toward older adults are, on average, more negative—but also that the gap depends heavily on what is being judged, shrinking when the target is described in detail rather than by age alone (Kite & Johnson, 1988). North and Fiske later brought the same meta-analytic lens to cross-cultural data, finding that attitudes toward older adults were, contrary to a common assumption, not uniformly more favourable in East Asian cultures, and that rapid population ageing was associated with more negative attitudes, not fewer (North & Fiske, 2015).

On the discrimination side, the question is not what people believe but what older adults actually experience. Erdman Palmore’s Ageism Survey asked older respondents how often they had encountered each of a list of ageist events—being ignored, patronised, denied a position, the target of a joke about age—and found that the great majority reported at least one, with everyday indignities far more common than the dramatic cases of formal discrimination (Palmore, 2001). Keeping the attitude measures and the experience measures apart matters because they dissociate: a society can hold increasingly egalitarian explicit attitudes while its institutions continue to produce the discriminatory experiences the survey counts. Demo 2 lets the reader select which ageist experiences a cohort reports and watch the prevalence of “at least one” climb.

Demo 2 · The prevalence of “at least one”

Palmore’s Ageism Survey counts discrete ageist events. A useful summary is the chance a person reports at least one: if the events were independent with report probabilities p_i, that chance is 1 − ∏(1 − p_i). Toggle the events a cohort reports and watch even modest rates sum to a near-universal experience.

Embodiment and the Life Course

The most consequential discovery in ageism research is that age stereotypes do not merely sit in the minds of the young; they are absorbed, across a lifetime, by the people they describe, and then shape those people’s bodies and minds. Becca Levy’s stereotype-embodiment theory sets out the mechanism: age stereotypes are internalised from the surrounding culture beginning in childhood, long before they become self-relevant; they operate largely without awareness; and they gain force as they become self-definitional with age. Once internalised, they act through psychological, behavioural, and physiological pathways—expectations, health behaviours, and the cardiovascular stress response (Levy, 2009). The empirical anchor is a longitudinal finding that is difficult to overstate: among older adults followed for over two decades, those with more positive self-perceptions of ageing lived a median of about 7.5 years longer than those with negative ones, an advantage that survived adjustment for age, sex, health, and socioeconomic status (Levy, Slade, Kunkel & Kasl, 2002).

A complementary mechanism operates in the moment rather than across the life course. Age-based stereotype threat—the anxiety of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group—depresses older adults’ performance on exactly the tasks the stereotype targets. Ruth Lamont, Hannah Swift, and Dominic Abrams’s meta-analysis found that making age stereotypes salient reliably worsened older adults’ memory and cognitive test scores, and that subtle manipulations (framing a task as a test of memory) did as much damage as blatant ones. The practical implication is pointed: some of the cognitive decline attributed to ageing in testing situations is produced by the testing situation itself (Lamont, Swift & Abrams, 2015). Demo 3 lets the reader raise the positivity of a person’s age self-perceptions and watch the predicted survival advantage grow.

Demo 3 · Embodiment and the survival advantage

Stereotype-embodiment theory holds that age beliefs internalised over a lifetime act through a “will to live” and the stress response to shape health. Represent age self-perceptions as a positivity score s from 0 to 1 and model the survival advantage over the most negative group as Δyears = 7.5s, scaled to the roughly 7.5-year median difference Levy and colleagues reported.

Ageism as a Public-Health Problem

The embodiment findings reframed ageism from a matter of manners into a determinant of health, and the public-health literature has followed. A systematic review by Eun-Shim Chang and colleagues examined ageism’s effects on older persons’ health across 45 countries and found evidence of harm—to physical health, mental health, and longevity—in the large majority of studies, with the effects especially pronounced in less wealthy nations (Chang et al., 2020). Síbila Marques and colleagues complemented this with a review of the determinants of ageism, distinguishing individual-level predictors (fear of death, lack of intergenerational contact, poor health) from contextual ones, and confirming that contact with older adults is among the most robust protective factors (Marques et al., 2020).

These syntheses motivated a coordinated response. Alana Officer and Vánia de la Fuente-Núñez described the World Health Organization’s Global Campaign to Combat Ageism, which treats ageism as a modifiable public-health target addressable through policy, education, and intergenerational contact (Officer & de la Fuente-Núñez, 2018). In a later analysis the same group related ageism to healthy life expectancy across populations, arguing that reducing ageism is not only a matter of justice but a lever on the number of years people live in good health (Officer et al., 2020). Sheri Levy and Jamie Macdonald, reviewing the progress of the field, stressed that the accumulated evidence had shifted the question from documenting ageism to intervening against it (Levy & Macdonald, 2016).

Worked Example

The mechanisms become concrete in three small exercises, each matching one of the demonstrations. The numbers are illustrative—they capture the qualitative shape of the published findings rather than reproducing any single reported statistic.

Locating the elderly stereotype in the warmth-competence space. Score warmth W and competence C each on a 0-to-1 scale, with a median split at 0.5 dividing “high” from “low.” The elderly stereotype sits at roughly W = 0.80, C = 0.30—high warmth, low competence, the pity cell. To express how clearly a group belongs to each emotional quadrant, take its distance to each of the four corner prototypes—admiration (1,1), pity (0,1), envy (1,0), contempt (0,0)—and convert distance to a membership weight with w = e^−3d, normalised to sum to one. This group lands 0.36 from the pity corner, 0.73 from admiration, 0.85 from contempt, and 1.06 from envy, giving memberships of about 60% pity, 20% admiration, 14% contempt, and 7% envy. The point is that the pity stereotype is a region of a continuous space, not a box: the old are seen as mostly warm-but-incapable, shading toward admiration as perceived competence rises (Cuddy, Norton & Fiske, 2005). Demo 1 lets the reader move W and C and read off the emotion.

The prevalence of at least one ageist experience. Palmore’s survey counts discrete ageist events; a useful summary is the chance a person reports at least one. If the events were independent with individual report probabilities p_i, that chance is 1 − ∏(1 − p_i). Take five common events with probabilities 0.40, 0.35, 0.30, 0.25, and 0.20. The probability of escaping all five is 0.60 × 0.65 × 0.70 × 0.75 × 0.80 = 0.164, so the probability of at least one is 1 − 0.164 = 84%. Even modest per-event rates combine into a near-universal experience, which is why Palmore found the great majority of older respondents reporting some ageism (Palmore, 2001). The independence assumption is a simplification—real events correlate—but the lesson, that rare-seeming slights sum to a common burden, is robust. Demo 2 lets the reader toggle the events and watch the total climb.

Stereotype embodiment and the survival advantage. Represent a person’s age self-perceptions as a positivity score s from 0 (wholly negative) to 1 (wholly positive). Model the survival advantage over the most negative group as a simple linear function, Δyears = 7.5 × s, scaled to the roughly 7.5-year median difference Levy and colleagues reported between the most positive and most negative groups. A person at s = 0.5 gains about 3.75 years; one at s = 0.8 about 6.0 years. The model treats a mediating “will to live” as proportional to s, echoing the proposed pathway from belief through motivation to physiology (Levy, Slade, Kunkel & Kasl, 2002; Levy, 2009). The linearity is a convenience; what the data support is the direction and the striking magnitude. Demo 3 lets the reader set s and read off the predicted gain.

Discussion

Read together, the strands of ageism research make a single point that the everyday meaning of the word misses: ageism is not one failing but a structured attitude whose components operate semi-independently and whose most serious effects are turned inward. The tripartite analysis Butler sketched and Nelson sharpened explains why anti-ageism efforts so often disappoint—improving explicit attitudes leaves the automatic stereotype and the discriminatory institution untouched—and why ageism can coexist with genuine affection for the old (Butler, 1969; Nelson, 2005). The Stereotype Content Model locates the distinctive signature of the elderly stereotype in the warmth-competence space: pity, not contempt, is the characteristic response, and pity is a prejudice that hides behind kindness (Cuddy, Norton & Fiske, 2005; North & Fiske, 2012).

The embodiment findings are what give the field its urgency. If internalised age stereotypes shape memory in the moment and survival across decades, then ageism is not merely unjust but materially harmful to the health of the very people who, in youth, helped sustain the stereotypes (Levy, 2009; Levy, Slade, Kunkel & Kasl, 2002; Lamont, Swift & Abrams, 2015). This is the sense in which ageism is prejudice against one’s future self with a sting the metaphor understates: the young person’s contempt becomes the old person’s self-concept, and then the old person’s health. The public-health reframing follows directly—if ageism is a modifiable determinant of health, then intergenerational contact, balanced media portrayal, and policy reform are health interventions, not merely courtesies (Chang et al., 2020; Marques et al., 2020; Officer & de la Fuente-Núñez, 2018). The through-line is that ageism, properly measured, is a structured and consequential variable—never a simple matter of whether one “likes” old people.

Current Directions

The most active recent work on ageism is global and interventionist. The World Health Organization’s campaign reframed ageism as a worldwide public-health priority, and the systematic reviews that accompanied it—Chang and colleagues on its reach across 45 countries, Marques and colleagues on its determinants—moved the field from documenting that ageism exists toward quantifying its health costs and identifying the levers that reduce it, of which intergenerational contact is the best supported (Chang et al., 2020; Marques et al., 2020; Officer & de la Fuente-Núñez, 2018). Linking ageism to healthy life expectancy has turned a social-justice argument into a measurable population-health one (Officer et al., 2020).

A second thread sharpens the construct itself. Ayalon and Tesch-Römer’s distinction between self- and other-directed ageism, and the broader push to treat ageism as multidimensional rather than a single attitude, are reshaping how it is measured and how interventions are targeted (Ayalon & Tesch-Römer, 2017; Levy & Macdonald, 2016). The cross-cultural evidence has upset a comfortable assumption, finding that respect for elders is neither universal nor reliably greater where populations are ageing fastest (North & Fiske, 2015). Across these threads the shared frontier is the same: replacing a single, Western, attitude-level picture of ageism with a multidimensional, cross-culturally validated, health-relevant model that specifies for whom and under what conditions ageism does its damage.

Common Misconceptions

Ageism only means discrimination against the old.

Discrimination is only one of three components. Ageism as Butler defined it combines age stereotypes (beliefs), age prejudice (feelings), and age discrimination (behaviour), and these can dissociate—a person may discriminate without conscious hostility, or feel warmth while acting with bias (Butler, 1969; Nelson, 2005).

Warmth toward older people rules out ageism.

The characteristic elderly stereotype is pity, not contempt: older adults are seen as warm but incompetent, a combination that feels like affection while licensing exclusion from work and decisions. Warmth toward the old is fully compatible with ageism (Cuddy, Norton & Fiske, 2005).

Age stereotypes are harmless even if inaccurate.

They are not. Internalised age stereotypes measurably impair older adults’ memory in the moment through stereotype threat and predict worse health and shorter survival across decades through stereotype embodiment (Lamont, Swift & Abrams, 2015; Levy, Slade, Kunkel & Kasl, 2002).

Eastern and traditional cultures are free of ageism because they revere elders.

Cross-cultural meta-analysis finds this assumption false: attitudes toward older adults are not uniformly more favourable in East Asian cultures, and rapid population ageing is associated with more negative attitudes, not fewer (North & Fiske, 2015).

Glossary

Age discrimination.

The behavioural component of ageism: differential treatment of people because of their age, from hiring and promotion to the design of health care and the content of everyday interaction.

Age prejudice.

The affective component of ageism: negative feelings toward people because of their age, as distinct from the beliefs (stereotypes) and the behaviour (discrimination) that accompany them.

Age stereotype.

The cognitive component of ageism: a set of beliefs about what members of an age group are like, such as the belief that older adults are warm but incompetent.

Ageism Survey.

Palmore’s instrument measuring how often older adults report experiencing each of a list of ageist events; it quantifies discrimination as experienced rather than attitudes as held.

Ageism.

Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination directed at people on the basis of their age, most often against older adults; a term coined by Robert Butler in 1969.

Competence.

One of the two dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model: whether a group is perceived as capable and effective. Older adults are stereotyped as low on this dimension.

Healthy life expectancy.

The number of years a person can expect to live in good health; positive self-perceptions of ageing predict more of these years, and the WHO treats ageism as a threat to it.

Other-directed ageism.

Ageist attitudes and behaviour a person holds toward other, older people, as distinct from the ageism they later internalise about themselves.

Prescriptive age stereotype.

A belief about how older adults ought to behave—ceding resources, not acting young, not over-consuming—as opposed to a descriptive belief about how they are; central to North and Fiske’s succession-identity-consumption model.

Self-directed ageism.

The internalisation of age stereotypes as they come to apply to oneself with age; the self-concept side of the attitudes a person once held about others.

Stereotype content model.

Fiske and colleagues’ framework in which groups are perceived along warmth and competence, with each combination eliciting a distinct emotion; it places older adults in the high-warmth, low-competence pity cell.

Stereotype embodiment theory.

Levy’s theory that age stereotypes, internalised from the culture across a lifetime and operating without awareness, shape older adults’ memory, physiology, health, and longevity.

Stereotype threat.

The performance decrement that follows from the anxiety of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group; for older adults it depresses memory and cognitive test scores when age stereotypes are made salient.

Warmth.

One of the two dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model: whether a group is perceived as friendly and well-intentioned. Older adults are stereotyped as high on this dimension.

Key Researchers

Dominic Abrams

(Professor of Social Psychology, University of Kent). Studies prejudice and intergroup relations across the lifespan; co-authored the meta-analysis of age-based stereotype threat and the European Social Survey work mapping experienced ageism across nations. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Liat Ayalon

(Professor, Bar-Ilan University). Led the European research network on ageism and co-edited the open-access volume on contemporary perspectives; drew the distinction between self- and other-directed ageism. ORCID · Google Scholar

Robert N. Butler

(1927-2010; founding director, United States National Institute on Aging). Coined the term “ageism” in 1969 and won the Pulitzer Prize for his study of growing old in America, establishing ageism as a subject of serious research. Wikipedia

Susan T. Fiske

(Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs, Princeton University). Co-originated the Stereotype Content Model, which locates older adults in the high-warmth, low-competence pity quadrant of social perception. Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Becca R. Levy

(Professor of Epidemiology and of Psychology, Yale University). Developed stereotype-embodiment theory and the longitudinal findings linking positive age self-perceptions to better memory, lower cardiovascular stress, and longer life. Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Todd D. Nelson

(Professor of Psychology, California State University, Stanislaus). Edited the standard scholarly volume on ageism and advanced the account of ageism as prejudice against one’s own feared future self. Google Scholar

Michael S. North

(Associate Professor, New York University Stern School of Business). Developed the succession-identity-consumption model of prescriptive age stereotypes and the cross-cultural meta-analysis of attitudes toward older adults. Google Scholar

Frequently Asked Questions

What is ageism?

Ageism is prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination directed at people because of their age, most often against older adults. It combines beliefs about an age group, feelings toward them, and differential treatment of them, and the term was coined by the gerontologist Robert Butler in 1969 by analogy with racism and sexism (Butler, 1969; Nelson, 2005).

Who coined the term ageism?

Robert Butler, the first director of the United States National Institute on Aging, introduced the term in 1969 to name the systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, explicitly modelling it on the words already used for prejudice by race and sex (Butler, 1969).

What are the components of ageism?

Ageism has the three components psychologists ascribe to any attitude: a cognitive component (age stereotypes, or beliefs), an affective component (age prejudice, or feelings), and a behavioural component (age discrimination). These can dissociate, so a person may discriminate without hostility or feel warmth while acting with bias (Nelson, 2005; Butler, 1969).

How are older adults stereotyped?

The Stereotype Content Model finds older adults perceived as high in warmth but low in competence—seen as kindly but incapable. This combination elicits pity, a condescending affection that can justify excluding older adults from meaningful work and decisions as readily as open hostility would (Cuddy, Norton & Fiske, 2005).

Can age stereotypes affect health?

Yes. Stereotype-embodiment theory shows that internalised age stereotypes shape memory, cardiovascular stress, and survival; in one longitudinal study, older adults with positive age self-perceptions lived a median of about 7.5 years longer than those with negative ones (Levy, 2009; Levy, Slade, Kunkel & Kasl, 2002).

What is age-based stereotype threat?

It is the drop in performance that follows from the anxiety of confirming a negative age stereotype. Meta-analysis finds that making age stereotypes salient reliably worsens older adults’ memory and cognitive test scores, so some apparent age-related decline in testing is produced by the testing situation itself (Lamont, Swift & Abrams, 2015).

Is ageism a global problem?

Yes. A systematic review across 45 countries found ageism harming older persons’ physical health, mental health, and longevity in the majority of studies, and the World Health Organization has made combating ageism a global public-health campaign (Chang et al., 2020; Officer & de la Fuente-Núñez, 2018).

Do cultures that revere elders avoid ageism?

Not reliably. Cross-cultural meta-analysis finds attitudes toward older adults are not uniformly more favourable in East Asian cultures, and that rapid population ageing is associated with more negative attitudes rather than fewer—so reverence for elders is neither universal nor guaranteed by tradition (North & Fiske, 2015).

References

Ayalon, L., & Tesch-Römer, C. (2017). Taking a closer look at ageism: Self- and other-directed ageist attitudes and discrimination. European Journal of Ageing, 14(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-016-0409-9

Butler, R. N. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9(4 Part 1), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/9.4_Part_1.243

Chang, E.-S., Kannoth, S., Levy, S., Wang, S.-Y., Lee, J. E., & Levy, B. R. (2020). Global reach of ageism on older persons’ health: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 15(1), e0220857. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220857

Cuddy, A. J. C., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00405.x

Kite, M. E., & Johnson, B. T. (1988). Attitudes toward older and younger adults: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 3(3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.3.3.233

Lamont, R. A., Swift, H. J., & Abrams, D. (2015). A review and meta-analysis of age-based stereotype threat: Negative stereotypes, not facts, do the damage. Psychology and Aging, 30(1), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038586

Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D., Kunkel, S. R., & Kasl, S. V. (2002). Longevity increased by positive self-perceptions of aging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.261

Levy, B. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01662.x

Levy, S. R., & Macdonald, J. L. (2016). Progress on understanding ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 72(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12153

Marques, S., Mariano, J., Mendonça, J., De Tavernier, W., Hess, M., Naegele, L., Peixeiro, F., & Martins, D. (2020). Determinants of ageism against older adults: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072560

Nelson, T. D. (2005). Ageism: Prejudice against our feared future self. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00402.x

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 982–997. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027843

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2015). Modern attitudes toward older adults in the aging world: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 993–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039469

Officer, A., & de la Fuente-Núñez, V. (2018). A global campaign to combat ageism. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(4), 295–296. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.202424

Officer, A., Thiyagarajan, J. A., Schneiders, M. L., Nash, P., & de la Fuente-Núñez, V. (2020). Ageism, healthy life expectancy and population ageing: How are they related? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3159. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093159

Palmore, E. (2001). The ageism survey: First findings. The Gerontologist, 41(5), 572–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/41.5.572