A prescriptive intergenerational-tension ageism scale: Succession, identity, and consumption (SIC).

Abstract

We introduce a novel ageism scale, focusing on prescriptive beliefs concerning potential intergenerational tensions: active, envied resource Succession, symbolic Identity avoidance, and passive, shared-resource Consumption (SIC). Four studies (2,010 total participants) developed the scale. EFA formed an initial 20-item, three-factor solution (Study 1). The scale converges appropriately with other prejudice measures and diverges from other social control measures (Study 2). It diverges from anti-youth ageism (Study 3). Study 4’s experiment yielded both predictive and divergent validity apropos another ageism measure. Structural equation modeling confirmed model fit across all studies. Per an intergenerational-tension focus, younger people consistently scored the highest. As generational equity issues intensify, the scale provides a contemporary tool for current and future ageism research.

The interaction between aging and death anxieties predicts ageism

“…Similarly, Benton et al (2007) found various associations between different dimensions of aging anxiety and fear of death. In addition, North and Fiske (2013) recently suggested (North & Fiske, 2013) a new instrument which assesses ageism through three different factors (consumption, succession, and identity). These directions are now open to further exploration following the current validation of the basic model.…”

Hard and soft age discrimination: the dual nature of workplace discrimination

“…3 The survey was financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education within a doctoral research grant. 4 Previous measures of ageism included: the Attitudes Towards Old People Scale (Kogan 1961); the Fraboni Scale of Ageism (Fraboni et al 1990) measuring the affective component of ageism; the Palmore Ageism Survey (Palmore 2001); a prescriptive ageism scale (North and Fiske 2013) focusing on prescriptive beliefs concerning potential intergenerational conflicts. Most of these tools measure the cognitive and affective dimensions of ageism and are not designed to study workplace discrimination.…”

Normative, Empiricist, and Interpretive Considerations in the Ageism Research Process

“…These three elements are the most obvious empiricist characteristics in ageism definitions. Accuracy resulting from empiricist considerations has provided the research field with validated scales to assess ageism (e.g., Lassonde et al 2012;North and Fiske 2013) and demonstrated how stereotypes affect a range of different outcomes. Empiricist considerations allow us to assess ageism in as valid, reliable, and accurate a manner as possible.…”

“…Their study demonstrates robust empirical results, a transparent description of the study design and decisions made during the research process, and a highly effective way of instantiating what prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination corresponds to in real life situations. North and Fiske's (2013) development of an intergenerational-tension ageism scale illustrates an explicit way of assessing ageism in an empirical study. In this study, North and Fiske did not depart from a definition of ageism, but from existing ageism scales, which they felt focused mainly on descriptive stereotypes and what older people are.…”

“…The SIC-scale fulfilled the requirements for internal validity, i.e., statistical explanations of the data were identified that qualified the results as a scale. Lassonde et al (2012) and North and Fiske (2013) focused on stereotypes and prejudice and did not engage in discussion about what the scales are linked to in terms of outcomes. Both contributions end in a suggestion that the scales can be used for purposes of investigating how ageism relates to behaviour, which is a very challenging task.…”