Doron MS

5 downloads 0 Views 346KB Size Report
68.0. Spain. Mediterranean Europe. 2576. 66.8. Russia. Only itself, because of its uniqueness ... and Israel (M=0.02, s.d.=0.64) to be a little above the general.
Send Orders for Reprints to [email protected] Current Aging Science, 2015, 8, 00-00

1

The Effect of Social and Cultural Factors on Ageism: Examination of the Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice Israel Doron* and Hanna Kafka University of Haifa Gerontology, Israel Abstract: Objective: This study seeks to examine the applicability of the Dual-Process Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice (DPM) as a theoretical explanatory frame-work to ageism. Methods: The study is based on a secondary analysis of the European Social Survey (ESS), a quantitative project established in 2001 that includes 34 European countries. The sample was a representative random sample of the adult population of eight participating countries, and included a total of 19,073 participants. Main Findings: In general, this study’s findings point to the fact that no statistically significant correlation exists between the personality variables, whether authoritative or social dominant, and ageism. Principal Conclusions: It appears that the theoretical framework of the DPM model may not be appropriate as a theoretical and explanatory model of the phenomenon of ageism. This may indicate that ageism possibly differs from similar social phenomena, such as sexism and racism, at least in its DPM model basis. More research is needed in this field to better understand the applicability of the DPM model to ageism.

Keywords: Ageism, DPM, dual process motivational model, prejudice, ESS. INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE REVIEW

The aging of populations around the world and the dramatic growth in the number of older persons and their relative proportion in the population have raised new social challenges. One of these challenges is the need to contend with the phenomenon of ageism, which is a complex social phenomenon. In the gerontological context, ageism is considered a relatively young concept, having been conceptualized for the first time only toward the end of the 1960s. The fact that its consequence is generally harmful to the rights of older persons [1] is not at all surprising and, perhaps for that reason, a significant rise in empirical research in the field has been noticeable across the globe in the past two decades.

Ageism and Its Definitions

The present study seeks to contribute to an understanding of the ageism phenomenon in the context of the examination of a theoretical framework that is supposed to explain it: the theoretical envelope of the Dual-Process Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice—the DPM model for short—as described by Duckitt and Sibley [2]. More concretely, the study seeks to examine the relationship between socio-cultural factors manifested in a country’s welfare policy (such as in the components of social responsibility toward all its citizens, the level of provision of social benefits, and the degree of equality in the society) and the ageism phenomenon [3, 4]. Address correspondence to this author at the University of Haifa Gerontology, Israel; Tel: +972-4-8249954; Fax: +972-4-8246832; E-mail: [email protected] 1874-6098/15 $58.00+.00

The historical definition of ageism given by Butler & Lewis [5] compared its two principal components, stereotypes and prejudices against old age, to those found in sexism and racism. Since then, many other attempts have been made to offer more precise or more comprehensive definitions of the term ageism [6, 7]. Thus, for example, Palmore [8] defined the concept like “every prejudiced opinion or discrimination against or for any age group” (p. 4); in other words, ageism for Palmore can be manifested against other age groups, not just older persons, and can be not only negative but also positive. One of the more updated attempts to define the term tries to emphasize the various levels of the existence of ageism: micro, meso, and macro. The basic level is the micro— personal and interpersonal—which appears in the form of refraining from personal communication, exhibiting a paternalistic attitude, and talking down to older persons. The intermediate, or meso, level refers to the family and one’s social network. The highest level is the macro, which includes the social structuring of old people and the subjects of policy and legislation [9]. On the basis of this definition, discrimination against older people and their isolation at every level feeds the other levels, and influences and is influenced by both individuals and institutions. A number of theories attempt to explain the causes of ageism. Among the more well-known theories in this field is the Terror-Management Theory (TMT), which explains how people’s awareness of their mortality causes them to fear old age, because death is associated almost exclusively with old © 2015 Bentham Science Publishers

2

Current Aging Science, 2015, Vol. 8, No. 3

age. Another known theory by means of which ageism may be explained is that of Social Identity Theory (SIT), which proceeds from the assumption that a person aspires to attain a positive self-identity. Self-identity is constructed to a large extent on an individual’s group identity, and therefore a positive feeling toward the group to which the person belongs will also create a positive feeling in regard to self-identity. Attitudes toward the other are less positive than attitudes toward “us,” thus causing the individual to feel good with his/her belonging to the group; Thus, self-identity enables making a distinction between young and old as belonging groups, the young distinguishing themselves from the old in attributing positive traits to their young age, and vice versa [10]. It should be stressed that ageism exists and is manifested in almost all spheres of life [6, 11]. Studies in the fields of law and health care have shown how older persons are discriminated against or are subject to stereotypes and prejudices [12-14]. Other studies, for example in the fields of employment and labor force have shown how older persons are negatively judged only due to their old age [15, 16]. Finally, research has also shown how self-ageism, or the internalization of societal expectations, can harm older persons themselves [17]. It is therefore of significant importance to better understand the roots of this social phenomenon. Ageism and the DPM Theory One of the theories that purport to explain the existence of prejudices is the dual-process motivational (DPM) model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. This is a theoretical model that explains the basis for the creation of prejudices and discrimination by relating to the connection between the cultural system and individuals in the society. The model presents the socio-cultural basis and the collective behavior, especially in the areas of conflict, prejudices, and ethnocentrism [2, 18]. According to the model, the beliefs that form the base of an individual’s weltanschauung (in German: one's philosophy of life) originate in one’s personality, processes of attachment, and exposure to a certain social environment in which the individual lives. Beliefs are translated into values, manifested in two different kinds of personality tendencies: the authoritarian personality and social dominance orientation. The personality tendency ranges across a continuum that is manifested in levels of perceptions and beliefs. The authoritarian personality reflects a person who aspires to maintain social confidence, order, stability, and cohesion. Such a person perceives the world as a place that is dangerous, unexpected, and threatening. This ideology stems from one’s personality and from exposure to an insecure, unstable environment [2, 18]. The authoritarian personality theory originated in the attempt to explain the basis for ethnocentrism, prejudice and fascism, after the Second World War. A questionnaire, the Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, was constructed by Altemeyer to measure the authoritarian personality [20-22]. On the other hand, the social dominance orientation reflects an ideology that views the world as a competitive jungle, in which the strong is victorious, leading to values of power, control, and superiority over the other [2, 18]. In the

Doron and Kafka

1990s, the social dominance theory developed, based on the assumption that all human societies tend to be structured in a hierarchical form on the basis of a division into groups [19]. The most dominant group is characterized by nonproportional ownership (in relation to its size) of the positive social resources, whereas the weak groups “gain” most of the negative social resources. A society lessens group conflict by advancing consensus ideologies that legitimize inter-group inequality and discrimination [19, 23]. A social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was developed to measure this trend. It examines the preference for hierarchical relationships among groups in contrast to equal, and the perception of the group to which a person belongs as controlling and superior to other groups. A number of studies conducted in different countries with the aid of a number of versions of the questionnaire found a positive correlation between SDO and sexism, racism, beliefs, and supporting military activity. A negative relation was found between SDO and being supportive of welfare programs for weak populations, for the rights of homosexuals and of women, and for racial mixture, as well as of tolerance [19, 23]. It emerges from these studies that the two kinds of personality strongly predict the same range of political and social phenomena: both predict perceptions of discrimination, ethnocentrism, and political orientation. Moreover, the personality types are not dependent on each other although a weak positive correlation between them was found. The variance in the characteristics of the social dominant personality and the authoritative personality manifests itself in a number of areas. Those who evince an authoritative personality at a high level, who see the world as a dangerous place, will express prejudices at higher scales towards populations perceived as threatening, such as criminals and violent youth groups. Those with a high dominant social personality, who perceive the world as a competitive place, will express prejudices and discrimination at higher levels towards weak groups in the population, such as the physically handicapped, the mentally deficient, fat people, and the mentally ill [18]. The DPM theoretical model has yet to be examined as an explanatory model in the area of prejudices against the elderly. The present study will try, for the first time therefore, to examine the predictive ability of ageism among the broad public by means of the DPM model within the context of different European welfare states. The general theoretical model of this research was as follows:

Fig. (1). The research model.

The Effect of Social and Cultural Factors on Ageism

Current Aging Science, 2015, Vol. 8, No. 3

RESEARCH DESIGN General The present study is based on a secondary analysis of data collected in the framework of the European Social Survey (ESS), a quantitative project established in 2001 and as of today numbering 34 European countries. Its objective is to describe and explain the relationship between the changes that have occurred in Europe and the attitudes, beliefs, and behavior patterns of the population. The ESS survey constitutes a comparative study of the various European countries in the areas of religion, ethics, politics, and other social subjects, and it enables tracking the changes that take place in these areas in those countries over time [24]. Since it was first conducted, the ESS survey has undergone four rounds, each with the identical core questionnaire, on such subjects as trust in state institutions, political opinions, social values, and socio-economic data, such as education, income, etc. In each round, in addition to the core questionnaire, a special questionnaire on social topics, such as immigration, attitudes toward health, and positions on welfare, was also administered. The fourth round, conducted in 2008, included a special questionnaire on ageism, experiences and expressions. The questionnaire was constructed of five central terms: categorization and identification according to age; stereotypes of and prejudices against old people; perception of status and threat; experience and reaction to discrimination; inter-generational relationships and similarities [25]. This special questionnaire enables comparative studies among countries to be carried out on various subjects in the field of ageism, as was done in the present study. Sample The study population included people 15 years old and older who live in the community in eight countries. These countries were selected from the thirty that participated in the European Social Survey in order to give suitable representation to the various countries of Europe and to various political cultures. The political culture of a country reflects the values it holds and is reflected in its welfare policy. Therefore, the countries chosen were Sweden (representing northern Europe and Scandinavia), Germany (central continental Europe), England (the Anglo-Saxon countries), RoTable 1.

3

mania (eastern Europe), and Spain (Mediterranean Europe), along with Israel, Turkey and Russia (representing unique socio-cultural mix of welfare regime). In actuality, the sample in this study was a representative random sample of the adult population of the participating countries, and included a total of 19,073 participants as detailed in Table 1. The method of data collecting in the original ESS research was through face-to-face interviews. The interview was conducted according to a constructed questionnaire, specially adjusted to each country in order to respond to the country’s cultural characteristics and to possible social sensitivities. The research was carried out by a team of interviewers who were personally guided by the rules set down in each country, subject to ESS guidelines [26]. Similarly, the minimal size of the sample was determined (1500 hundred participants in each country); and an effort was made to attain a response rate of 70% in each country. Research Tool The present study is based on the ESS research tool, from which specific details were selected as will be elaborated. Use was made of details relating to the study variables: ageism, authoritative personality (RWA), and social dominant personality (SDO), as well as of relevant socio-economic data. An index was constructed for the purpose of this secondary study. The dependent variable here was ageism. This variable was investigated by means of thirteen items that reflect stereotypes about old people and prejudices against them. The items were selected from the Experiences and Expressions of Ageism questionnaire that had been administered in the framework of the fourth round of ESS, in 2008 [26]. This was a specific questionnaire in the area of ageism that had been prepared especially for ESS purposes and whose findings had been analyzed in various contexts. It contained such questions as the following: “What is the probability that most people in (name of country) have compassion for people over 70?” Answers were ranked from 1-5 on a kind of ordinal Likert-like scale. The independent variable, authoritative personality, was examined by means of eight items taken from three different ESS questionnaires: Media Social Trust, which included

The Sample (n=19,073). Country

Countries Represented

No. of Participants

% Response

Sweden

Scandinavia

1830

62.2

Germany

Central Europe

2751

48.0

England

Anglo-Saxon

2352

55.8

Romania

Eastern Europe

2146

68.0

Spain

Mediterranean Europe

2576

66.8

Russia

Only itself, because of its uniqueness and importance

2512

67.9

Turkey

Only itself, because of its religio- cultural uniqueness

2416

66.5

Israel

Only itself, because of its religio- cultural uniqueness

2490

77.7

4

Current Aging Science, 2015, Vol. 8, No. 3

Doron and Kafka

questions on the subject of media and social trust; Politics, with questions on political stands; and Welfare, with items on welfare topics. The questions chosen reflect perceptions that are manifested in Altemeyer’s [20-22] (1988) RWA (Right Wing Authoritarianism) scale, the items for which relate to order, discipline, conservatism, and obeying authority; a high score reflects an outlook that the world is a dangerous and threatening place. These questions included for example the following question: “How much do you agree with the statement that schools need to teach children to obey authority?” Answers were ranked from 1-5 on an ordinal Likert scale. The independent variable Social Dominant Personality was investigated through nine questions taken from the European Policy and Welfare survey questionnaires. The questions chosen reflect perceptions of dominance and control in social relationships as manifested in the SDO (social dominance orientation) scale [23]. The questionnaire examines positions on power, control, and hierarchy in contrast to equality in social relationships, a high score reflecting a perception of reality in which there is competition for control. For example, the questions included the following: “To what extent do you agree with the statement that in order for a society to be just, the differences in people’s standards of living have to be small.” Answers were ranked on an ordinal Likert scale from 1-5. Lastly, the socio-demographic variables were taken from eight different countries within the ESS questionnaire and included the variables of gender, age, and education level. A summary of the socio-demographic variables appears in Table 2. RESULTS The first stage of the analysis of the findings involved a theoretical analysis of the main variables of the study model. An examination of the questionnaire results found that the ageism variable averaged 1.46 (st. dev. 0.62) on a scale of 04, testifying to the low-medium level of ageism. In other words, the attitudes that the participants expressed toward old people were generally positive. Variance existed among the participating countries, the lowest level of ageism found in Spain (M=1.17, s.d.=0.58), and the highest in Russia (M=1.63, s.d.=0.62). As for the level of authoritative personality (RWA), the variable was examined by means of a standard score, the Table 2.

general average being 0.00 (s.d.=0.69). The higher the score, the higher was the tendency to an authoritative personality. This means that as the level of the authoritative personality rose, the person tended to be more conservative, aspired more to preserve the existing order, and was more compliant with existing social conventions. A check of the various countries in the survey found Romania (M=0.01, s.d.= 0.76) and Israel (M=0.02, s.d.=0.64) to be a little above the general average, followed by Spain (M=0.06, s.d.=0.61). The highest average was found for Turkey (M=0.48, s.d.-0.81). Scoring below the general average were Russia (M= -0.08, s.d.=0.67), England (M= -0.09, s.d.=0.58), and Germany (M= -0.15, s.d.=0.60). The lowest average was found for Sweden (M= -0.29, s.d.=0.53). It may be seen from these data that Turkey showed the highest level of authoritarian personality, and Sweden the lowest. In regard to the dependent variable values, SDO (social dominant orientation), which was examined by means of a standard score, had a general average of 0.00 (s.d.=0.69). This personality trait ranged across the continuum, a high score reflecting a perception of the world as competing for resources, aspiration for social hierarchy, and a desire to control the other. Investigation of the countries showed England to have the highest average (M=0.29, s.d.=0.67), followed by Russia (M=0.04, s.d.=0.73) and Turkey (M=0.03, s.d.=0.68). Below the general average were Germany (M= -0.02, s.d.=0.65), Israel (M= -0.02, s.d.=0.63), and Romania (M= -0.14, s.d.=0.74). The lowest average was recorded by Sweden (M= -0.24, s.d.=0.65). According to the data, the highest level of social dominant personality was found in England, and the lowest in Sweden. In the second stage of the analysis of the findings, an attempt was made to examine correlation among variables. First, the connection between the level of social dominant personality and the level of ageism (r=0.01, ns) was looked at; next, that between the level of authoritative personality and the level of ageism. In both cases Pearson correlation analysis was used. The findings pointed to a negative correlation, of weak intensity, between the authoritative personality and ageism (r=0.16, p