Past research has demonstrated that older adults are stereotyped as less malleable than young adults. Moreover, beliefs that people are less malleable are associated with lower confrontations of prejudice, as perpetrators are seen as less capable of changing their (prejudiced) behavior. The present research sought to integrate these lines of research to demonstrate that endorsement of ageist beliefs that older adults are less malleable will lead to a lower confrontation of anti-Black prejudice espoused by older adults. Across four experimental studies (N = 1,573), people were less likely to confront anti-Black prejudice espoused by an 82-year-old compared with a 62-, 42-, or 20-year-old, due, in part, to beliefs that older adults are less malleable. Further exploration demonstrated that malleability beliefs about older adults were held across young, middle-aged, and older adult samples. These findings demonstrate how stereotypes about older adults can impede racial equality.
AltN. P.ChaneyK. E.ShihM. J. (2019). “But that was meant to be a compliment!”: Evaluative costs of confronting positive racial stereotypes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(5), 655–672.
2.
Ashburn-NardoL.BlancharJ. C.PeterssonJ.MorrisK. A.GoodwinS. A. (2014). Do you say something when it’s your boss? The role of perpetrator power in prejudice confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 615–636.
3.
BrownR. M.CraigM. A.ApfelbaumE. P. (2021). European Americans’ intentions to confront racial bias: Considering who, what (kind), and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104–123.
4.
CadieuxJ.ChasteenA. L. (2015). You gay, bro? Social costs faced by male confronters of antigay prejudice. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 436–446.
5.
CarrP. B.DweckC. S.PaukerK. (2012). “Prejudiced” behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 452–471.
6.
CaryL. A.ChasteenA. L.RemediosJ. (2017). The ambivalent ageism scale: Developing and validating a scale to measure benevolent and hostile ageism. The Gerontologist, 57(2), e27–e36.
7.
ChaneyK. E.SanchezD. T. (2018). The endurance of interpersonal confrontations as a prejudice reduction strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 418–429.
8.
ChaneyK. E.SanchezD. T. (2022). Prejudice confrontation styles: A validated and reliable measure of how people confront prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(5), 1333–1352.
9.
ChaneyK. E.WedellE. (2022). How lay theories of prejudice shape prejudice confrontations: Examining beliefs about prejudice prevalence, origins, and controllability. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(4), e12658.
10.
ChaneyK. E.YoungD. M.SanchezD. T. (2015). Confrontation’s health outcomes and promotion of egalitarianism (C-HOPE) framework. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 363–371.
11.
ChasteenA. L.HorhotaM.Crumley-BranyonJ. J. (2021). Overlooked and underestimated: Experiences of ageism in young, middle-aged, and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, 76(7), 1323–1328.
12.
ChasteenA. L.SchwarzN.ParkD. C. (2002). The activation of aging stereotypes in younger and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 57(6), P540–P547.
13.
CuddyA. J.NortonM. I.FiskeS. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 267–285.
14.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 532–544.
15.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J.MarkA. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 784–803.
16.
DeArmondS.TyeM.ChenP. Y.KraussA.Apryl RogersD.SintekE. (2006). Age and gender stereotypes: New challenges in a changing workplace and workforce. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2184–2214.
17.
DickterC. L. (2012). Confronting hate: Heterosexuals’ responses to anti-gay comments. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(8), 1113–1130.
18.
DickterC. L.KittelJ. A.GyurovskiI. I. (2012). Perceptions of non-target confronters in response to racist and heterosexist remarks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 112–119.
19.
EbnerN.RiedigerM.LindenbergerU. (2010). FACES—A database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and validation. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 351–362.
20.
FirebaughG.DavisK. E. (1988). Trends in antiblack prejudice, 1972–1984: Region and cohort effects. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 251–272.
21.
GeorgeP. A.HoleG. J. (1995). Factors influencing the accuracy of age estimates of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 24(9), 1059–1073.
22.
GervaisS. J.HillardA. L. (2014). Confronting sexism as persuasion: Effects of a confrontation’s recipient, source, message, and context. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 653–667.
23.
GoodJ. J.Moss-RacusinC. A.SanchezD. T. (2012). When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(2), 210–226.
24.
GulkerJ. E.MarkA. Y.MonteithM. J. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293.
25.
HildebrandL. K.JusufC. C.MonteithM. J. (2020). Ally confrontations as identity-safety cues for marginalized individuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1318–1333.
26.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028.
27.
HummertM. L.GarstkaT. A.ShanerJ. L.StrahmS. (1994). Stereotypes of the elderly held by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 49(5), P240–P249.
28.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263.
29.
LassetterB.NeelR. (2019). Malleable liberals and fixed conservatives? Political orientation shapes perceived ability to change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 141–151.
30.
LassetterB.NeelR.RattanA. (2022). Does the desire to confront sexism depend on perpetrator age [Unpublished Manuscript].
31.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442.
32.
MartinA. E.NorthM. S. (2021). Equality for (almost) all: Egalitarian advocacy predicts lower endorsement of sexism and racism, but not ageism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(2), 373–399.
33.
MonteithM. J.MarkA. Y. (2005). Changing one’s prejudiced ways: Awareness, affect, and self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 113–154.
34.
MonteithM. J.MarkA. Y.Ashburn-NardoL. (2010). The self-regulation of prejudice: Toward understanding its lived character. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(2), 183–200.
NeelR.LassetterB. (2015). Growing fixed with age: Lay theories of malleability are target age-specific. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1505–1522.
37.
NelsonT. D. (2016). The age of ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 72(1), 191–198.
38.
PlaksJ. E.LevyS. R.DweckC. S. (2009). Lay theories of personality: Cornerstones of meaning in social cognition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1069–1081.
39.
RadvanskyG. A.CopelandD. E.Von HippelW. (2010). Stereotype activation, inhibition, and aging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 51–60.
40.
RasinskiH. M.CzoppA. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 8–16.
41.
RattanA.DweckC. S. (2010). Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21(7), 952–959.
42.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A.SalvatoreJ.HillD. M. (2006). Silence is not golden: The intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice. In LevinS.van LaarC. (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality (pp. 79–96). Psychology Press.
43.
SheltonJ. N.StewartR. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215–223.
44.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
45.
SimonS.MossA. J.O’BrienL. T. (2019). Pick your perspective: Racial group membership and judgments of intent, harm, and discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(2), 215–232.
46.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?! Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68–88.
47.
WoodzickaJ. A.LaFranceM. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15–30.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
