TY - JOUR
T1 - Judging Older Targets' Discourse
T2 - How Do Age Stereotypes Influence Evaluations?
AU - Kwong See, Sheree T.
AU - Heller, Robert B.
N1 - Funding Information:
Received 25 May 2002; accepted 2 February 2003. This research was supported by grants 41019971629 and G124130227 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Address correspondence to Sheree T. Kwong See, Department of Psychology, P220 Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2E9, E-mail: [email protected]; or to Robert Heller, Centre for Psychology, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada, T9S 3A3, E-mail: [email protected]
PY - 2004/1/1
Y1 - 2004/1/1
N2 - Young adults viewed then read either good or poor descriptions of a cartoon under the guise that the descriptions were produced by young (aged 21 years), young-old (aged 65 years), or old-old persons (aged 81 years). On a rating of quality, description type interacted with target age. For young targets, good descriptions were judged as good (assimilation to expectation) and poor were rated as very poor (a contrast effect). For young-old targets, for whom expectations were lower than for young targets but not as low as for old-old targets, good performance was perceived as very good and poor performance very poor (contrast effects). For old-old targets for whom negative age stereotyping would lead to lowest expectations for performance, poor was rated as poor (assimilation to expectation) but good performance was rated as very good (a contrast effect). Young raters use a shifting standard to judge the performance of older pe ople.
AB - Young adults viewed then read either good or poor descriptions of a cartoon under the guise that the descriptions were produced by young (aged 21 years), young-old (aged 65 years), or old-old persons (aged 81 years). On a rating of quality, description type interacted with target age. For young targets, good descriptions were judged as good (assimilation to expectation) and poor were rated as very poor (a contrast effect). For young-old targets, for whom expectations were lower than for young targets but not as low as for old-old targets, good performance was perceived as very good and poor performance very poor (contrast effects). For old-old targets for whom negative age stereotyping would lead to lowest expectations for performance, poor was rated as poor (assimilation to expectation) but good performance was rated as very good (a contrast effect). Young raters use a shifting standard to judge the performance of older pe ople.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0345872314&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/03610730490251487
DO - 10.1080/03610730490251487
M3 - Journal Article
C2 - 14660333
AN - SCOPUS:0345872314
SN - 0361-073X
VL - 30
SP - 63
EP - 73
JO - Experimental Aging Research
JF - Experimental Aging Research
IS - 1
ER -