细分老龄歧视:继承和消费的政策问题。

IF 7.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Issues and Policy Review Pub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01042.x
Michael S North, Susan T Fiske
{"title":"细分老龄歧视:继承和消费的政策问题。","authors":"Michael S North, Susan T Fiske","doi":"10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01042.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ageism research tends to lump \"older people\" together as one group, as do policy matters that conceptualize everyone over-65 as \"senior.\" This approach is problematic primarily because it often fails to represent accurately a rapidly growing, diverse, and healthy older population. In light of this, we review the ageism literature, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between the still-active \"young-old\" and the potentially more impaired \"old-old\" (Neugarten, 1974). We argue that ageism theory has disproportionately focused on the old-old and differentiate the forms of age discrimination that apparently target each elder subgroup. In particular, we highlight the young-old's plights predominantly in the workplace and tensions concerning succession of desirable resources; by contrast, old-old predicaments likely center on consumption of shared resources outside of the workplace. For both social psychological researchers and policymakers, accurately subtyping ageism will help society best accommodate a burgeoning, diverse older population.</p>","PeriodicalId":47129,"journal":{"name":"Social Issues and Policy Review","volume":"7 1","pages":"36-57"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3919636/pdf/nihms548082.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subtyping Ageism: Policy Issues in Succession and Consumption.\",\"authors\":\"Michael S North, Susan T Fiske\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01042.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ageism research tends to lump \\\"older people\\\" together as one group, as do policy matters that conceptualize everyone over-65 as \\\"senior.\\\" This approach is problematic primarily because it often fails to represent accurately a rapidly growing, diverse, and healthy older population. In light of this, we review the ageism literature, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between the still-active \\\"young-old\\\" and the potentially more impaired \\\"old-old\\\" (Neugarten, 1974). We argue that ageism theory has disproportionately focused on the old-old and differentiate the forms of age discrimination that apparently target each elder subgroup. In particular, we highlight the young-old's plights predominantly in the workplace and tensions concerning succession of desirable resources; by contrast, old-old predicaments likely center on consumption of shared resources outside of the workplace. For both social psychological researchers and policymakers, accurately subtyping ageism will help society best accommodate a burgeoning, diverse older population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"36-57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3919636/pdf/nihms548082.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01042.x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Issues and Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01042.x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

老龄歧视研究倾向于将 "老年人 "作为一个群体来看待,政策问题也是如此,将 65 岁以上的所有人都视为 "老年人"。这种方法之所以存在问题,主要是因为它往往不能准确地代表快速增长、多样化和健康的老年人口。有鉴于此,我们回顾了有关老龄歧视的文献,强调了区分仍然活跃的 "年轻老人 "和可能受到更多损害的 "年老老人"(Neugarten,1974 年)的重要性。我们认为,年龄歧视理论过多地关注老年人,并对明显针对每个老年人亚群的年龄歧视形式进行了区分。我们特别强调了年轻人主要在工作场所的困境,以及与继承理想资源有关的紧张关系;相比之下,老年人的困境可能集中在工作场所以外的共享资源消费上。对于社会心理学研究者和政策制定者来说,准确地细分老龄歧视将有助于社会更好地适应快速增长的多样化老年人口。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Subtyping Ageism: Policy Issues in Succession and Consumption.

Ageism research tends to lump "older people" together as one group, as do policy matters that conceptualize everyone over-65 as "senior." This approach is problematic primarily because it often fails to represent accurately a rapidly growing, diverse, and healthy older population. In light of this, we review the ageism literature, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between the still-active "young-old" and the potentially more impaired "old-old" (Neugarten, 1974). We argue that ageism theory has disproportionately focused on the old-old and differentiate the forms of age discrimination that apparently target each elder subgroup. In particular, we highlight the young-old's plights predominantly in the workplace and tensions concerning succession of desirable resources; by contrast, old-old predicaments likely center on consumption of shared resources outside of the workplace. For both social psychological researchers and policymakers, accurately subtyping ageism will help society best accommodate a burgeoning, diverse older population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.20
自引率
1.10%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The mission of Social Issues and Policy Review (SIPR) is to provide state of the art and timely theoretical and empirical reviews of topics and programs of research that are directly relevant to understanding and addressing social issues and public policy.Papers will be accessible and relevant to a broad audience and will normally be based on a program of research. Works in SIPR will represent perspectives directly relevant to the psychological study of social issues and public policy. Contributions are expected to be review papers that present a strong scholarly foundation and consider how research and theory can inform social issues and policy or articulate the implication of social issues and public policy for theory and research.
期刊最新文献
A human rights‐based approach to climates injustices at the local, national, and international levels: Program and policy recommendations The connections—and misconnections—between the public and politicians over climate policy: A social psychological perspective Omission as a modern form of bias against Native Peoples: Implications for policies and practices Psychological science and its societal mission during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic: The Motivation Barometer as an evidence‐informed policy instrument in Belgium The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1