Communication Evaluations Across the Life Span

Abstract

In this study, 490 community adults aged 20 to 59 evaluated their experiences with non-family members aged 13 to 16 years, 65 to 85 years, and their own age, in terms of their perceptions of both the others’ and their own communicative behavior. As well as validating previous research that suggested that nonaccommodation, accommodation, and respect/obligation are important evaluative dimensions for communication between younger and older people, these results revealed two relatively new evaluative dimensions—noncommunication and self-promotion—which seem particularly relevant for perceptions of communication with 13- to 16-year-olds. Overall, although elders are perceived as more nonaccommodative, 13- to 16-year-olds were viewed as more noncommunicative, less accommodative, and more self-promotional. Findings also suggest changes in evaluations across the lifespan. For example, the older respondents tended to view elders more favorably. Results are discussed in the context of a plea for more research taking a developmental lifespan perspective on intergenerational communication.

Implications of metastereotypes for attitudes toward intergenerational contact

“…As such, investigations of metastereotype modification could be informed by and integrated with studies of communication accommodation theory (CAT; Coupland et al, 1991), a theory that addresses the means by which individuals adjust their communicative behavior to manage social distance and social identity. For example, young adults who grew up thinking that older adults viewed them as noncommunicative and self-promoting (e.g., Williams & Garrett, 2002) could strategically refrain from interactional behaviors that display these tendencies in order to challenge outgroup stereotypes. In the vocabulary of CAT, such an action might be understood as diverging from a norm of ingroup communication.…”

“…Our communication surely reveals to others the esteem we have for the groups to which they belong. Young people, for instance, often report finding interactions with older adults dissatisfying because they feel overtly and negatively stereotyped by those older adults (Williams & Garrett, 2002). Such experiences very likely contribute to the development of their negative meta stereotypes.…”

“…grow apart from each other with little inter-age communication beyond the immediate family” (p. 82). Echoing Ng et al (1997), Hagestad and Uhlenberg (2005) remark on the age-homogeneity of nonfamily networks, while Williams and Garrett (2002) report that in their “age segregated” culture, the college students they studied spend “as little as 5% to 10% of their time communicating with people older than 65” (p. 104). We argue that the relative atypicality of interaction across age boundaries—particularly that which lacks the protective buffer that “familial relationships provide .…”

“…When young adults describe the characteristics of dissatisfying conversations with older adults, one theme that emerges is the belief that “older partners see young people as irresponsible, reckless, and/or naïve” (Harwood & Williams, 1998, p. 15). As Williams and Garrett (2002) explain, young people are well aware that older adults have numerous, unflattering stereotypes regarding members of their age group, and find it quite easy to recall instances where they experienced being negatively stereotyped by older persons. This is important, because it suggests that young adults’ dissatisfaction with interage encounters is not necessarily predicated on what actually occurs during these interactions.…”

“…Interage interaction most commonly takes place in family domains when parents interact with children or grandparents interact with grandchildren (Williams & Giles, 1996). Although most people have rather age-homogenous social networks (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2005; Williams & Garrett, 2002), there remain many situations outside the family in which people may communicate with members of other age groups. Such encounters may occur in social gatherings (e.g., religious congregations, orchestral ensembles) or service contexts (e.g., physician–patient, cashier–customer).…”