Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:31:02.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Judgment Context on Assessments of Age Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

V. J. Knox  and
W.L. Gekoski
V. J. Knox
Affiliation:
Queen's University
W.L. Gekoski
Affiliation:
Queen's University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been suggested that an exaggeration of the target age effect is obtained when the same respondents judge multiple age groups rather than only one age group. In the present study each of 1200 undergraduates rated a young, middle-aged, or old target on the 32 bipolar adjective pairs of the Aging Semantic Differential (ASD; Rosencranz & McNevin, 1969). An additional 200 undergraduates rated all three target age groups on the ASD. The ASD was scored in terms of the three dimensions reported by its authors. In the isolated judgment condition young targets were rated highest on the Instrumental-Ineffective and Personal Acceptability-Unacceptability dimensions followed, in both cases, by middle-aged and then by old targets; on the Autonomous-Dependent dimension, middle-aged targets were rated higher than both young and old targets. The hypothesized exaggeration of the target age effect in the comparative judgment condition was obtained for the descriptive dimensions (Instrumental-Ineffective and Autonomous-Dependent) but not for the evaluative dimension (Personal Acceptability-Unacceptability) of the ASD. Possible explanations for why judgment context might affect descriptive but not evaluative assessments of target age groups are discussed.

Résumé

On a suggéré qu'une exagération de l'effet âge cible résulte d'une situation où les mêmes participants jugent plusieurs groupes d'âge plutôt que d'en juger seulement un. Dans la présente enquête, 1200 sous-gradués évaluent ou une cible jeune, ou une d'âge moyen, ou une d'âge avancé, sur les 32 paires d'adjectifs bipolaires contenues dans l'Aging Semantic Differential (ASD; Rosencranz & McNevin, 1969). En plus, 200 autres sous-gradués soumettent tous les trois groupes d'âge cible à une même évaluation. Les résultats du ASD sont compilés en fonction des trou dimensions formulées par ses auteurs. Lorsque le jugement est rendu séparément, les résultats indiquent que les jeunes cibles se classent en tête pour la dimension Instrumental-Ineffective and Personal Acceptability-Unacceptability, suivies dans les deux cas des cibles d'âge moyen puis celles d'âge avancé; au niveau de la dimension Autonomous-Dependent, ce sont les cibles d'âge moyen qui se classent en tête, suivies des jeunes et des cibles d'âge avancé. L'hypothèse voulant qu'une exagération de l'effet âge cible se produise sous condition de jugement comparatif est vérifiée au niveau des dimensions descriptives (Instrumental-Ineffective and Autonomous-Dependent), mais non au niveau des dimensions évaluatives (Personal Acceptability-Unacceptability) du ASD. Les auteurs concluent en avançant des raisons qui pourraient expliquer pourquoi le contexte du jugement peut affecter les évaluations descriptives et non évaluatives des groupes d'âge cible.

Keywords

Attitudesagedcontext effectsresearch design
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Fall/automne 1989 , pp. 244 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Atchley, R.C. (1983). Aging: Continuity and change. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Baron, R.A., & Bryne, D. (1987). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Bennett, R., & Eckman, J. (1973). Attitudes toward aging: A critical examination of the research literature and implications for future research. In Eisdorfer, C. & Lawton, M.P. (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 575–597). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brubaker, T.H., & Powers, E.A. (1976). The stereotype of “old”: A review and alternative approach. Journal of Gerontology, 3, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, H. (1984). Later life: The realities of aging. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Deaux, K., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1984). Social psychology in the 80's. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Gekoski, W.L., Knox, V.J., Johnson, E.A., & Evans, K.R. (1984). Sex of target and sex of subject effects on the perception of 25, 45, 65, and 85 year olds. Canadian Journal on Aging, 3, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gekoski, W.L., & Knox, V.J., (1984). [Comparison of comparative and isolated judgment methods for assessing how old and young targets varying in health status are viewed]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
Gekoski, W.L., Knox, F.J., Majid, S.M., & Kelly, L.E. (1984). Evaluativeness ratings of 192 adjectives comprising 96 adjective pairs frequently used in assessing perceptions of individuals of different ages (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University, Department of Psychology, Aging Research Project.Google Scholar
Hamilton, D. (1981). Illusory correlation as a basis for stereotyping. In Hamilton, D.L. (Ed.). Cognitive process in stereotyping and intergroup behavor (pp. 115–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kogan, N. (1979). Beliefs, attitudes, and stereotypes about old people: A new look at some old issues. Research on Aging, 3, 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutsky, N.S. (1980). Attitudes toward old age and elderly persons. In Eisdorfer, C. (Ed.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics: Vol. I. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Martin Mathews, A., Tindale, J.A., & Norris, J.E. (1985). The Facts on Aging Quiz: A Canadian validation and cross-cultural comparison. Canadian Journal on Aging, 3, 369–372.Google Scholar
McKenzie, S.C. (1980). Aging and old age. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
McTavish, D.G. (1971). Perceptions of old people: A review of reserach methodologies and findings. The Gerontohgist, 11, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTavish, D.G. (1982). Perceptions of old people. In Mangen, D.J. & Peterson, W.A. (Eds.), Research instruments in social gerontology: Vol. 1. Clinical and social psychology (pp. 533–541). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
O'Connell, A.N., & Rotter, N.G. (1979). The influence of stimulus age and sex on person perception. Journal of Gerontology, 34, 220–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmore, E. (1977). Facts on Aging: A short quiz. The Gerontohgist, 17, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosencranz, M.A., & McNcvin, T.E. (1969). A factor analysis of attitudes toward the aged. The Gerontohgist, 9, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schonfield, D. (1982). Who is stereotyping whom and why? The Gerontohgist, 22, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Taylor, S.E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In Hamilton, D.L. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior, (pp. 83–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tuckman, J., & Lorge, I. (1953). Attitudes toward old people. Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 249–260.Google Scholar
Ward, R.A. (1984). The aging experience: An introduction to social gerontology. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Wingard, J.A., Heath, R., & Himelstein, S.A. (1982). The effects of contextual variations on attitudes toward the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 475–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed