Abstract
We present a systematic review of 64 empirical studies that examine the links between ageism and career-related outcomes. Adopting a social cognitive theory lens, our review distinguishes between and integrates various manifestations of ageism under the umbrella of age stereotypes toward others and perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination. We suggest two stages of career outcomes, with Stage 1 comprising three pathways that mediate the links to Stage 2 outcomes. Our review shows that when employees experience ageism, their relationships with employers, work, stress, and abilities can change, shaping career behaviours and outcomes in both positive and negative directions. Our findings provide insight for both individuals and human resource development (HRD) practitioners on how ageism at work influences career outcomes and, more broadly, offer learning around how age-friendly environments can be supported.
Keywords
Introduction
Workplace ageism, defined as a lack of respect or incorrect assumptions made about individuals based on their chronological age (Chasteen et al., 2021), remains a pervasive and persistent issue (S. R. Levy et al., 2022; Tougas et al., 2004), despite growing awareness of the importance of equality and inclusion in the workplace. The World Health Organization (2021) reports that one in two people globally have ageist attitudes towards older people. Research shows that about 64% of workers aged 50 and older say they have witnessed or experienced age discrimination at work (Perron, 2026). The global shift from a demographic dividend to an ageing population is underway, though the pace varies across regions, with even labour-abundant areas gradually experiencing this inevitable change (Ma et al., 2025). This trend makes the prevalence and tolerance of ageism particularly concerning, as more workers are likely to be impacted (Marchiondo et al., 2016).
Ageism comprises positive and negative age-related stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination aimed at ourselves or others, depending on how old we are (World Health Organization, 2021). It is often characterised by a lack of respect or false assumptions (Chasteen et al., 2021), and can manifest across the lifespan (Giles & Reid, 2005). It disadvantages employees through stereotypes, prejudicial assumptions and discriminatory practices (Malinen & Johnston, 2013). Ageism, while usually related to older people, also affects employees across the age spectrum. Older employees may be stereotyped as less capable or adaptable (Petery et al., 2020), while younger employees may be perceived as inexperienced or as not valuing their contributions (Jyrkinen & McKie, 2012). These assumptions may lead to their exclusion from key opportunities (e.g., manifesting as negative evaluations and unfair practices in processes such as recruitment, promotion, and training), and undermine individuals’ well-being (Bratt et al., 2018; Chasteen et al., 2021; De Paula Couto & Rothermund, 2019; Turek et al., 2022).
The breadth of studies on ageism in the workplace has inspired a small number of review studies that integrate their findings. These reviews cover age discrimination in employment interviews (Morgeson et al., 2008), age stereotypes (Dordoni & Argentero, 2015; Posthuma & Campion, 2009; Weber et al., 2019), and their negative impact on older workers (Dordoni & Argentero, 2015; Weber et al., 2019). Recent reviews demonstrate that workplace ageism manifests in multiple organisational practices, including discrimination in recruitment and access to job vacancies, unequal access to training opportunities, pressure to retire, and the use of stereotypical images that marginalise older employees (Cebola et al., 2023). Bae and Choi (2023) found that as workers grow older, they tend to hold less age-discriminatory attitudes, suggesting a negative association between age and endorsement of ageist beliefs in the workplace. These reviews typically examine one aspect of workplace ageism (i.e., age stereotyping or age discrimination) in isolation (Ayalon & Tesch-Römer, 2018).
Within the human resource development (HRD) literature, existing work has primarily examined age-related HRD practices, as well as age-related bias embedded within workplace learning and development contexts (Billett et al., 2011; Van der Heijden et al., 2022); however, evidence linking ageism to career-related outcomes remains fragmented and has yet to be systematically synthesised. The career success literature highlights the material and psychological outcomes associated with individuals’ work experiences (Judge et al., 1995), including both objective indicators, such as income, promotions, and occupational status, and subjective evaluations, such as career satisfaction (Gattiker & Larwood, 1986; Seibert et al., 2024). In this review, we use the term career-related outcomes to refer to both objective and subjective aspects of individuals’ careers, and also to organisational career-related decisions that shape these outcomes.
Comparison of the Present Review With Prior Review Studies on Workplace Ageism
To address the issues outlined above and complement the existing reviews, we set out to address two research questions: What are the ageism-related factors associated with career-related outcomes? What are the processes that link such factors to career outcomes? We conducted a systematic and interdisciplinary review that outlined the direct and indirect links between (a) ageism (i.e., age stereotypes toward others and perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination) and (b) individual and organisational career outcomes, and acknowledged the contextual factors shaping this process. In this review, we conceptually distinguish between two forms of ageism: age stereotypes toward others and perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination, both of which are defined in the findings section. Our review is informed by social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986), whose central tenet is the interplay between individual, behavioural, and environmental factors (Bandura et al., 2001). We draw on SCT as an integrative lens to explain these multi-level associations, as discussed in the theoretical perspective and elaborated further in the findings section.
This review contributes to the existing literature on workplace ageism in multiple ways. Adopting an SCT perspective, we demonstrate the interaction between individual perceptions, behaviours, and environments to explain how ageism in the workplace is associated with relevant career outcomes. Bringing together findings from both qualitative and quantitative empirical studies, we identify multiple mediating pathways that link ageism to career-related outcomes. Recognising these mechanisms provides insight for both individuals and organisations, and, more broadly, informs policies aimed at fostering age-friendly work environments.
Theoretical Perspective
Our review is informed by social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986), which provides a guiding framework for the conceptualisation and analysis of how ageism relates to career-related outcomes. While it is presented here for clarity, SCT shaped the identification and interpretation of mechanisms throughout the review process. Social cognitive approaches have been used to explain how age discrimination influences older employees’ knowledge-sharing with younger colleagues (Fasbender & Gerpott, 2021). A central tenet of SCT is the triadic reciprocal model in which environmental events, behavioural patterns, and personal characteristics, such as cognitive, affective, and bodily events, all function as interrelated factors that impact one another (Bandura, 2001).
Based on the triadic interaction of factors and their symbolic capacity (Bandura, 1989), people who experience ageism in social or organisational contexts can absorb and be shaped by these experiences in ways that subsequently influence their age-based judgments and behaviours towards others. This may lead them, consciously or unconsciously, to initiate positive or negative behaviours towards their own or others’ career development, which can influence related employment practices and individual career planning. Drawing on SCT, we suggest that ageism, whether experienced directly or perceived in the environment, may be reflected in individuals’ work-related perceptions and self-evaluations, including their relationship with work, their appraisal of work-related stress, and their beliefs about their own capabilities. These perceptions and evaluations are, in turn, associated with career-related behaviours and outcomes. Guided by this framework, we identify three distinct mechanisms through which ageism relates to career outcomes. These mechanisms, informed by the SCT model of reciprocal determinism, are unpacked in detail in the findings section.
Methods
This study adopted a systematic literature review methodology (Nightingale, 2009) to retrieve and integrate the existing literature on ageism and career-related outcomes. This methodology minimises bias (Moher et al., 2009) and allows for a systematic, transparent, and replicable approach to searching and integrating research findings (Davis et al., 2014).
Database Search
Keywords and Boolean Operators Used for the Database Search
Screening Process
The search retrieved a total of 1,520 records (excluding duplicates), which were exported to Mendeley for further screening. We then screened the articles based on two questions. Acknowledging the importance of conducting an evidence-based review (Snyder, 2019), our first screening question was (1) Does the article report an empirical scholarly study (i.e., not a conceptual or descriptive study, book review, literature review, or non-scholarly article)? The second question was (2) Does this paper simultaneously examine the association between ageism (or other factors that imply positive or negative age stereotypes, such as age discrimination or age-related stereotypes or stereotypes relating to older workers or young people) and career-related outcomes? For example, we excluded articles that examined age discrimination but did not reflect career-related outcomes or workplace experiences. Articles not meeting one or both inclusion criteria were excluded (1,326); 194 articles were selected for further review.
To enhance the transparency and consistency of the screening process, the initial screening of titles and abstracts was conducted independently by two researchers based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any discrepancies identified during this stage were discussed until consensus was reached, and where necessary, a third researcher was consulted to support decision-making. This process helped minimise individual judgement bias and ensured consistency in the article selection process. To complement the search and minimise database inclusion errors, we hand-searched four journals that have traditionally published articles on age discrimination and careers: the Journal of Vocational Behavior, Human Resource Development International, Journal of Managerial Psychology, and Ageing & Society. This step added six articles. We also checked the reference lists of the shortlisted articles, which added four articles. This led to a total of 64 articles included in the final analysis. See Figure 1 for our process. Article search and selections
Data Organisation and Synthesis
Review Summary Table
Of the 64 studies included in this review, 73% were published after 2013, indicating a steady increase in scholarly attention to workplace ageism in the past decade. Moreover, 69% involved participants or data from the Global North, while only four studies focused on participants from the Global South, with the remainder covering mixed or unspecified regions. Study approaches used were 69% quantitative, 22% qualitative, and 9% mixed methods. Employees in various industries (e.g., health technology, banking, IT/e-commerce and education) were the main participants in about 80% of the studies, and the rest involved both employees and employers, or employers only. Only 13 studies examined all age groups, and 44 studies involved participants with a mean age of 40 or more years.
Seventy-two percent of the studies explicitly mentioned the theories that had informed their work. Ten studies drew on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2000), five used self-categorisation theory (Sindic & Condor, 2014), and the remaining studies adopted a range of theories, including the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Demerouti et al., 2001) and conservation of resources (CoR) theory (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000).
To synthesise the findings of the reviewed articles, we adopted Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2019) thematic analysis approach and followed their six-stage outline guide for analysis. First, we read the key findings from each article in detail and documented the links between ageism and career-related outcomes. For the quantitative studies, we documented hypotheses examining the impact of ageism on career-related outcomes and reported significant relationships. For the qualitative studies, we treated the findings as qualitative data and generated initial codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) by identifying and categorising various types of ageism and their links to career-related outcomes. These initial codes captured recurring patterns of age-related perceptions, practices, and experiences identified across the reviewed studies (e.g., “perceived as less adaptable”, “limited training opportunities”, “reduced organisational identification”) and provided a basis for subsequent categorisation and analysis. Adopting an SCT lens and informed by ageism literature, we grouped ageism from the perspectives of social context, employer, and employee, respectively, which resulted in 25 subcategories. Third, after familiarising ourselves with the data and developing the code (Xu & Zammit, 2020), we began to search for themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To make the themes fit, we discarded some codes and refined themes to form a coherent analysis story (Braun & Clarke, 2014). In doing that, we grouped the 25 subcategories into eight themes and reviewed, defined, and named them (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The identified categories were then interlinked using SCT to form a model. Through an iterative process, we utilised SCT to inform the integration of categories, develop themes, and finally organise them in our theoretical framework.
Intercoder Reliability
To maintain intercoder reliability (Lombard et al., 2002) - a numerical measure that evaluates the extent of agreement across several coders working on the same data (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020) - we used the following process. Before starting the coding, we identified three coders in advance to participate in the data analysis process and determined key concepts and findings (i.e., phrases, sentences, and paragraphs). We worked together to identify and develop a preliminary coding framework comprising 15 main categories. First, one coder in the team coded the data using a subset of the framework’s categories (i.e., “work alienation” from “the relationship with work and organisation” category). Then, the other two coders independently coded the same subset using the coding framework. After comparing the coding documents, we found differences in some codes. For example, regarding the definition of “work alienation”, one coder believed this category should only include employees’ behavioural manifestations of alienation (e.g., lacking initiative at work), while the other believed it should include psychological detachment from work (e.g., believing that their work had no actual value or psychological withdrawal).
In discussing this question, we reviewed all the articles related to work and organisational relationships, along with their key definitions and relevant measures to capture the nuances of the data. Ultimately, we decided to include “psychological withdrawal” and “work meaningfulness” in the “work alienation” code to better integrate our dataset. Disagreements in code definitions were resolved through considered discussion, leading to consensus. All coding decisions were made collaboratively without hierarchical dominance, and each coder had equal authority in discussions and decisions. Initial coder teams usually show considerable differences, but revising the codebook and recoding can ultimately achieve high intercoder reliability (Hruschka et al., 2004). Finally, once we were satisfied with the reliability of the coding framework, we completed the final coding of the entire data set, thus ensuring consistency and reliability in the coding process for qualitative research.
The three coders diverse academic backgrounds provided a multifaceted perspective in analysing the impact of ageism on careers. The lead author and coder works on ageism and career inequality, the second coder researches career success, and the third coder focuses on labour market inequalities from a sociological perspective. This multidisciplinary team structure helped enhance the theoretical breadth and reliability of the coding process.
Findings
We grouped the antecedents associated with career-related outcomes (i.e., (a) age stereotypes toward others and (b) perceived age stereotypes/discrimination) into two clusters. In this study, we define age stereotypes toward others as generalised assumptions that people hold about individuals of different age groups (e.g., assuming older workers are slow to learn new technology). Such stereotypes act as cognitive frameworks that embed people’s expectations and beliefs about different age groups (Cuddy et al., 2005). In contrast, perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination capture how individuals perceive that others view or treat them differently on the basis of age - whether positively or negatively. These antecedents, hereinafter referred to as ageism, were associated with two groups of outcomes that we labelled as Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 1 outcomes mediated the links between ageism and Stage 2 outcomes. Stage 1 outcomes comprised three categories: relationships with work and organisation, perceived work stress, and self-efficacy. Stage 2 outcomes comprised negative and positive outcomes from the employer’s and employee’s perspectives, as shown in Figure 2. In Figure 2, (+) is used to denote favourable outcomes and (−) is used to denote unfavourable outcomes. For associations where findings were inconsistent (exhibiting both positive and negative directions) across different categories, no specific sign is assigned to reflect this complexity. A conceptual model of the relationship between ageism and career-related outcomes. Note. (+) indicates favourable outcomes; (−) indicates unfavourable outcomes. Outcomes without signs may be positively or negatively affected depending on the nature of ageism (e.g., positive vs. negative stereotypes)
A subset of the articles looked only at the direct links between (a) ageism and Stage 1 outcomes, or (b) ageism and Stage 2 outcomes. Another group of articles examined Stage 1 outcomes as mediating the links between ageism and Stage 2 outcomes. Therefore, we labelled the three categories of Stage 1 outcomes as Pathways A, B, and C to show the mediating effects. Note that not all the studies tested mediators. Our proposed model draws on SCT to capture the indirect and multi-pathway relationships between ageism and career outcomes, as suggested in a subset of the reviewed articles (e.g., Bal et al., 2015; Peng, 2022; Van Dalen & Henkens, 2018) included in the review. Before presenting the review, we elaborate on the theoretical foundations of the three pathways using the SCT framework, conceptualising Pathways A, B, and C as distinct mechanisms through which ageism influences career outcomes. These pathways are unpacked in detail below, drawing on evidence from the reviewed studies.
Within SCT’s tripartite framework, we conceptualise ageism as encompassing both environmental factors (e.g., social context of age norms and negative meta-stereotypes) and personal factors (e.g., individual beliefs and perceptions about age-related stereotypes and discrimination) that reciprocally influence behavioural outcomes through three main pathways. These pathways reflect SCT’s principle of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978), whereby environmental ageism shapes personal cognitions and emotions, which in turn influence career-related behaviours.
Pathway A captures how ageism in the work environment undermines individuals’ identification with work and organisation (e.g., job satisfaction and commitment). These relational disruptions illustrate how environmental ageism affects individuals’ cognitive and affective states, consistent with the person factor in SCT. These internalised responses may, in turn, shape career-related behaviours and outcomes. Pathway B (perceived work-related stress) captures how perceived age-based exclusion and declining developmental opportunities give rise to heightened stress (e.g., reduced perceived resources and a shortened occupational future time perspective). Pathway C (self-efficacy) shows how ageism-related experiences shape individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs, influencing their career-related confidence, decision-making, and future planning.
These mechanisms, while analytically distinct, do not operate in isolation. Rather, they collectively demonstrate how environmental ageism and internalised perceptions interact to shape cognitive, emotional, and motivational responses that, in turn, influence career-related behaviours. Notably, in the context of ageism, many variables - such as occupational future time perspective, self-efficacy, or belongingness - are both products of environmental exposure and agents of behavioural response, blurring rigid distinctions between environment and person. This reinforces SCT’s foundational premise: that behavioural outcomes emerge from the dynamic, bidirectional interplay among environmental events, personal cognition, and enacted behaviour.
Our framework provides an integrated picture of how various pathways work together to explain how ageism contributes to multiple career-related outcomes, rather than presenting those mechanisms in isolation. Each of the three pathways (A, B, and C) corresponds to a distinct typology of mechanisms that capture the implications of ageism on individuals’ perceptions of work-organisation relationships, perceived work stress, and self-perceptions, as well as on subsequent career outcomes. These Stage 1 mechanisms serve as mediators linking age-based stereotypes and discrimination to broader career outcomes, which we conceptualise as Stage 2 outcomes in our model.
Number of Studies by Ageism Theme
Note. Some studies examined multiple themes and may be counted more than once. Counts reflect the number of studies providing evidence for each theme rather than unique articles.
Social Context Factors and Career Outcomes
Our review found that two types of age-related beliefs, namely age norms and negative meta-stereotypes, played a background role in ageist behaviour and thinking, which can be crucial in affecting subsequent career-related outcomes. Age norms refer to socially shared expectations about age-appropriate roles or timing in a given context (Lawrence, 1988). These perceptions of age were often taken for granted in organisations and influenced how individuals managed their careers and work behaviours in line with prevailing age norms (Vickerstaff & Van der Horst, 2021). The term meta-stereotype describes individuals’ beliefs about the stereotypes that members of other groups hold about their own group (Vázquez et al., 2017; Vorauer et al., 1998). Specifically, negative meta-stereotypes refer to how adopting another person’s viewpoint can overshadow potentially constructive interactions if the person believes that the other person will view them through a negative stereotype (Finkelstein et al., 2013).
Across 15 studies, age norms and negative meta-stereotypes were associated with discriminatory opportunity provision, reduced career motivation, and negative performance (e.g., J. Allen et al., 2021; Axelrad et al., 2022; Karpinska et al., 2013; Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018; Solem, 2016; Weiss & Perry, 2020).
Age Norms
Across nine studies, age norms were mainly linked to reduced career motivation and discriminatory employment opportunities. These studies most commonly linked age norms to reduced career motivation, including career truncation, lower learning motivation, and stronger turnover or retirement intentions (e.g., Brooke, 2009; Horta & Li, 2024; Krekula, 2019; Vickerstaff & Van der Horst, 2021). For example, Brooke (2009) found that IT workers envisaged their careers were limited by age-based “normative” assumptions of competence, which were reported to contribute to career truncation, loss of ambition to continue working, and inducement to early retirement.
Age norms were also linked to discriminatory employment opportunities, particularly in recruitment and hiring decisions (e.g., Axelrad et al., 2022; Karpinska et al., 2013; Oude Mulders, 2020; Solem, 2016). For example, employers often preferred younger candidates in recruitment, although this tendency was weaker when employers’ expected retirement age was higher (Oude Mulders, 2020). Similarly, managers with higher age norms were more likely to hire early retirees (Karpinska et al., 2013). Solem (2016) similarly found that managers were often reluctant to invite candidates in their 50 s for interviews, even when they viewed older workers as equally competent as younger workers.
Negative Meta-Stereotypes
Across six studies, negative meta-stereotypes were more often indirectly linked to career outcomes, particularly through stereotype threat and occupational future time perspective. One study found that lower negative meta-stereotypes were associated with higher work engagement and greater access to flexible work arrangements, suggesting that stronger negative meta-stereotypes may undermine performance-related outcomes (J. Allen et al., 2021).
Three studies linked negative meta-stereotypes to Stage 1 outcomes through stereotype threat, including organisational disidentification and lower thriving or self-evaluative resources (e.g., Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018; Weiss & Perry, 2020). For example, age-based stereotype threat mediated the relationship between negative meta-stereotypes and overall thriving (i.e., Pathway C: self-efficacy). Furthermore, Oliveira and Cabral-Cardoso (2018) found that age-based stereotype threat mediated the relationship between negative meta-stereotypes and organisational disidentification.
Negative meta-stereotypes were also indirectly associated with Stage 2 outcomes, especially negative performance and turnover intentions, through stereotype threat and occupational future time perspective. For example, Oliveira and Cabral-Cardoso (2018) found that age-based stereotype threat mediated the relationship between negative age-based meta-stereotypes and work disengagement. Bal et al. (2015) further showed that negative meta-stereotypes were associated with turnover intentions through employees’ perceptions of the time and opportunities remaining in their careers, that is, an occupational future time perspective. Specifically, stronger negative meta-stereotypes were linked to perceptions of fewer remaining opportunities before retirement, which in turn were associated with stronger retirement intentions.
Across the reviewed studies, age norms were more frequently linked to reduced career motivation and discriminatory employment opportunities, whereas negative meta-stereotypes were more often connected to outcomes indirectly through stereotype threat and occupational future time perspective. This pattern suggests an uneven analytical emphasis across social context factors, with different forms of contextual ageism examined either through direct associations or through intervening processes.
Ageism Category 1 Career Outcomes
Age Stereotypes Toward Others
A set of beliefs about individuals based on their age is referred to as age stereotypes (B. R. Levy et al., 2011). We found 24 studies that discussed the associations between stereotypical attitudes about others’ ages and Stage 1 and 2 career outcomes (e.g., Axelrad et al., 2022; Billett et al., 2011; Chiu et al., 2001; Maurer et al., 2008; Rego et al., 2018; Tresh et al., 2019). We divided the age stereotypes toward others into negative and positive age stereotypes as described below, and we subsequently describe the direct links between these stereotypical views of older workers and career outcomes.
Negative Age Stereotypes
Negative age stereotypes refer to the negative perceptions regarding the abilities of a specific group of people (e.g., older people) (Kroon, 2019) because of their age. The literature observed this, where older individuals were perceived as having lower intelligence, ambition, and commitment than younger individuals (Bodner, 2009).
In total, 16 studies examined direct links between negative age stereotypes (i.e., older workers are perceived to be less adaptable to new technologies, less innovative, and less able to learn) (Maurer et al., 2008) and career outcomes (e.g., Axelrad et al., 2022; Billett et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2003; Kroon, 2019; Rego et al., 2018; Solem, 2016; Tresh et al., 2019). We now turn to the reported direct associations between negative age stereotypes and career outcomes, as identified in the reviewed studies.
Negative age stereotypes were reported in the reviewed studies to be directly associated with Stage 1 (e.g., Pathway C: self-efficacy) and Stage 2 outcomes (e.g., discriminatory opportunity provision and reduced career motivation). Two studies showed that negative age stereotypes are directly related to Pathway C: self-efficacy (Stage 1 outcomes) (e.g., Maurer et al., 2008; Tresh et al., 2019). Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s assessment of their ability to effectively organise and carry out actions in certain situations (Schunk, 1984). Bandura (1982) explored the central role of self-efficacy mechanisms in human behaviour, noting that emotional arousal, behaviour, and thought processes are all shaped by individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs. The likelihood that individuals will take action based on the anticipated results of their future performances is contingent upon their beliefs regarding their ability to achieve those performances (Bandura, 2001). Individuals tend to avoid engaging in activities they perceive as being beyond their ability, but they confidently undertake and successfully complete tasks they believe they can manage (Bandura, 1977). Tresh et al. (2019) found that negative age stereotypes were negatively associated with employees’ self-efficacy (Stage 1 outcomes). They found that older employees were more influenced by negative age stereotypes than their younger colleagues, which, in turn, reduced their leadership potential self-rating (i.e., Pathway C: self-efficacy) (Tresh et al., 2019).
Our review identified 13 studies showing that negative age stereotypes can also be directly associated with Stage 2 outcomes: discriminatory opportunity provision, discriminatory employment practices, and reduced career motivation (i.e., turnover intention). Among these studies, eight found that negative age stereotypes were associated with discriminatory employment opportunities; three reported an association with discriminatory training, development, and promotion opportunities; and two found that these stereotypes were associated with employer preferences for the forced dismissal of specific age groups, leading to less hiring of older people, fewer training and promotion opportunities, and unfair dismissal (e.g., Abrams et al., 2016; Axelrad et al., 2022; Billett et al., 2011; Koivunen et al., 2015; Kroon, 2019; Rego et al., 2018; Solem, 2016).
Gringart et al.’s (2005) study showed that negative stereotypes are associated with a lower likelihood of hiring older employees, as respondents perceive older employees as having less of certain traits, such as trainability and adaptability, than younger people. For example, Fasbender and Wang (2017) found that negative attitudes towards older workers were positively linked to avoiding hiring them and negatively related to selecting the oldest candidate. They also found that negative age stereotypes toward older workers indirectly affected the likelihood of selection, and decision makers’ core self-evaluations moderated hiring decisions for older adults. Core self-evaluation can be defined as a positive self-concept that refers to an individual’s basic conclusions about themselves (Judge et al., 2003). Rego et al.’s (2018) study indicates that most managers preferred to hire younger employees; furthermore, most managers opted to retain younger employees and dismiss older employees, even though older candidates were recognised for their outstanding performance. One study found that beliefs that older workers are incapable of further development were positively correlated with the view that they should retire (Maurer et al., 2008).
Positive Age Stereotypes
Positive age stereotypes refer to positive perceptions and evaluations of older employees as possessing positive attributes and advantages due to age accumulation, such as a wealth of experience, reliability, and loyalty (Oude Mulders, 2020). Eight studies reported direct associations between positive age stereotypes (i.e., older workers are perceived to be warmer, more reliable, and have higher social skills than younger workers) and positive career outcomes (e.g., Gioaba & Krings, 2017; Van Dalen & Henkens, 2018).
The reviewed studies reported direct associations between positive age stereotypes and equality in employment practices and a friendly work climate. These positive outcomes include equal opportunities for employment/retention decisions, increased promotion opportunities, reduced possibility of demotion, ample training and development opportunities, and positive collaboration with older employees (e.g., Chiu et al., 2001; Oude Mulders, 2020; Rego et al., 2018; Van Dalen & Henkens, 2018). For example, Oude Mulders (2020) investigated employers’ views on older workers’ soft and hard qualities, finding that when employers favoured older workers’ soft qualities more than their hard qualities, they rated them relatively more favourably for hiring and providing training, but were less likely to offer long-term contracts.
Chiu et al. (2001) examined the impact of stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older people on employment practices, focusing on adaptability (willingness and ability to learn new skills, take on responsibilities, and keep up with work demands) and work effectiveness (dependability, work quality, and loyalty). Positive adaptability stereotypes, such as the belief that older employees can adapt to change, were positively associated with training, promotion, retention, and willingness to work with older employees, whereas work effectiveness beliefs predicted only attitudes towards retention. Van Dalen and Henkens (2018) investigated how managers perceive demotion as a human resource management tool, and identified hard skills (e.g., creative skills, mental and physical capacity, and willingness to learn new skills) and soft skills (e.g., social skills, management skills, and reliability) as factors to be analysed. They found that managers with a positive view of older employees’ hard skills were less likely to support demotions, and when considering demotions, managers prioritised hard skills over soft skills.
The 24 studies reviewed in this category provide consistent evidence that age stereotypes toward others are associated with both Stage 1 and Stage 2 career outcomes. Negative age stereotypes were more frequently examined and were predominantly linked to adverse outcomes, including reduced self-efficacy, discriminatory opportunity provision, discriminatory employment practices, and reduced career motivation. Although fewer studies examined positive age stereotypes, the available evidence suggests that they are associated with more favourable outcomes, such as greater equality in employment practices and a more friendly work climate. Taken together, these findings suggest that age stereotypes toward others are associated with a range of career-related outcomes, with patterns varying by stereotype valence and outcome type.
In the next section, we turn to Ageism Category 2 and examine how individuals’ perceptions of age-related stereotypes and discrimination are linked to Stage 1 and Stage 2 career outcomes.
Ageism Category 2 Career Outcomes
Perceived Age-Related Stereotypes/Discrimination From Others
Perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination refers to individuals’ perceptions about how others perceive them or their age group in a given environment (e.g., a society or workplace) (Giasson et al., 2017). We identified four types of perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination: perceived age discrimination, stereotype threat, internalised age stereotypes/norms, and perceived positive and negative age stereotypes. Although these subthemes are grouped under perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination from others, they capture different aspects of perceived ageism. Specifically, perceived age discrimination reflects individuals’ perceptions of age-based treatment and practices within organisations. Internalised age stereotypes or norms capture the incorporation of age-related beliefs into individuals’ self-perceptions. Stereotype threat refers to individuals’ concerns about confirming to negative age-based stereotypes in evaluative or work-related situations. Perceived positive and negative age stereotypes refer to individuals’ perceptions of favourable or unfavourable age-based evaluations and expectations from others.
In the following sections, we first report evidence on the direct associations between these forms of perceived ageism and career-related outcomes, before turning to studies that examine indirect links via Pathways A, B, and C.
Perceived Age Discrimination
Perceived age discrimination (e.g., the behavioural component of ageism) is highly prevalent in society, with about one in three people in Europe reporting such experiences (Ayalon & Bramajo, 2023).
A total of 22 studies reported direct associations between perceived age discrimination and Stage 1 and 2 outcomes (e.g., M. W. Allen et al., 2006; Billett et al., 2011; Bronstein, 2001; Ginn & Arber, 1996; Soidre, 2005; Stypinska & Turek, 2017; Yeung et al., 2021). Five studies examined the direct associations between perceived age discrimination and Stage 1 outcomes, including Pathways A, B, and C (e.g., Bronstein, 2001; Madera et al., 2012; Yeung et al., 2021; Zhang & Gibney, 2020). The remaining studies found that perceived age discrimination was also directly linked to Stage 2 outcomes (e.g., Bronstein, 2001; James et al., 2013; Yeung et al., 2021).
Two studies found a direct link between perceived age discrimination and Pathway A: job satisfaction (e.g., Madera et al., 2012; Yeung et al., 2021). For example, Yeung et al. (2021) showed that perceived age discrimination positively correlated with job strain, but there was no significant correlation with job engagement or intention to stay in the workplace.
One study identified a relationship between perceived age discrimination and Pathway B: job resources and demands (e.g., Yeung et al., 2021). Job resources and demands refer to the response between an individual’s demands and their resources to cope with those demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). For example, they found that perceived age discrimination in the workplace was associated with less job resources (i.e., support from supervisors and colleagues and job autonomy) among older employees; it was also associated with higher job demands (i.e., workload and emotional demands) among older employees.
Two studies reported direct associations between perceived age discrimination and Pathway C: self-efficacy (e.g., Bronstein, 2001; Zhang & Gibney, 2020). A qualitative study found that perceived age discrimination caused older women to give up their ambitions of contributing to their field, leading them to devote most of their energy to teaching and service, and reduced their self-confidence in promotion (i.e., Pathway C: self-efficacy) (Bronstein, 2001). Perceived age discrimination was also observed to be significantly and negatively associated with perceived job sustainability (Zhang & Gibney, 2020).
Our review identified 17 studies that reported direct associations between perceived age discrimination and Stage 2 outcomes, i.e., discriminatory opportunity provision, discriminatory employment practices, reduced career motivation, negative performance, and unfriendly work climate (e.g., M. W. Allen et al., 2006; Bronstein, 2001; Griffin et al., 2016; Palumbo & Manna, 2020; Stypinska & Turek, 2017).
Seven studies reported that perceived age discrimination was associated with Stage 2 organisational outcomes (i.e., discriminatory employment opportunities, discriminatory training/promotion/bonus opportunities, precarious employment contracts, and [fear of] forced dismissal). Stypinska and Turek (2017) found that age discrimination in the labour market negatively affected employment prospects, and that severe discrimination included actions such as receiving reduced wages, being demoted, being fired, or being denied the opportunity to participate in training. Another quantitative study found that perceived age discrimination was related to bonuses received, i.e., older employees who perceived more age discrimination were less likely to receive a bonus (Kluge & Krings, 2008). Palumbo and Manna (2020) found that younger participants were more likely to report unfair changes to their working arrangements, whereas older participants were more likely to experience unjust layoffs and demeaning treatment.
Ten studies showed that perceived age discrimination was also directly related to individual outcomes (e.g., M. W. Allen et al., 2006; Griffin et al., 2016; Ilczuk et al., 2023). Among these studies, eight reported direct associations between perceived age discrimination and reduced career motivation (e.g., turnover intention, early retirement intention, and actual job withdrawal); one study reported a direct association with negative performance (i.e., work engagement) (e.g., James et al., 2013), and another showed that perceived age discrimination led directly to an unfriendly work climate (i.e., tense colleague relationships) (e.g., Bronstein, 2001).
M. W. Allen et al. (2006) found that women feeling disrespected or being treated differently because of their age could lead to voluntary turnover. In addition, men who felt unappreciated at work (because of age discrimination) were inclined to retire early, suggesting that negative perceptions motivated them to leave the labour market early (Soidre, 2005). Ilczuk et al. (2023), in a study of individuals aged over 50 in Poland, found that perceived age discrimination and other factors that push people out of employment significantly reduced the likelihood of starting a business later in life. Another quantitative study noted that perceived age discrimination had a direct negative impact on job satisfaction and actual job withdrawal, but no impact on actual retirement (Griffin et al., 2016).
The 22 reviewed studies in this section indicate that perceived age discrimination is associated with both Stage 1 and Stage 2 career outcomes. At Stage 1, evidence suggests links between perceived age discrimination and individuals’ relationships with work and organisation, work-related stress, and self-efficacy, although findings are not uniform across all indicators. At Stage 2, a substantial number of studies report direct associations with discriminatory employment practices, reduced career motivation, negative performance, and an unfriendly work climate. The reviewed evidence points to predominantly negative associations between perceived age discrimination and career-related outcomes at both the individual and organisational levels.
Stereotype Threat
Stereotype threat refers to the concern of confirming or being constrained by a negative stereotype associated with one’s social identity (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele et al., 2002). As we discussed in the previous section, stereotype threat can mediate the influence of negative meta-stereotypes as a social context factor on negative performance (Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018).
Seven studies showed that stereotype threat was directly associated with both Stage 1 and Stage 2 outcomes. Three of these studies focused on Pathway A (i.e., Stage 1 outcomes) (e.g., Manzi et al., 2021; Von Hippel et al., 2013), while the remaining studies reported direct links with Stage 2 outcomes (e.g., Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018).
Three studies showed that stereotype threat was directly associated with Pathway A, including organisational identification, work alienation, and job satisfaction. For example, Von Hippel et al. (2013) found that experiencing stereotype threat was associated with negative job attitudes among older employees. Similarly, Manzi et al. (2021) found that high levels of age stereotype threat were linked to lower organisational identification and a reduced sense of authenticity at work among workers over 50.
Four studies reported that stereotype threat was also directly related to Stage 2 career outcomes, including reduced career motivation (i.e., turnover intention), negative performance (i.e., work disengagement and negative work performance), and diminished well-being (e.g., Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018; Von Hippel et al., 2013). For example, Von Hippel et al. (2013) found that older workers who experienced stereotype threat reported lower psychological well-being at work and were more likely to resign. High levels of age stereotype threat were also associated with poorer self-rated work performance (Manzi et al., 2021) and greater work disengagement (Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018).
Across these studies, stereotype threat is associated with both Stage 1 and Stage 2 career outcomes. At Stage 1, evidence points to links between stereotype threat and individuals’ relationships with work and organisation, including organisational identification, work alienation, and job satisfaction. At Stage 2, several studies report direct associations with reduced career motivation, negative performance, and diminished well-being. These findings suggest that stereotype threat tends to be linked with unfavourable career-related outcomes.
Internalised Age Stereotypes/Norms
Self-directed age stereotypes (Cuddy et al., 2005) are the components of a broader concept, specifically the self-perceptions of the ageing process (Kornadt et al., 2022). Based on stereotype embodiment theory (B. R. Levy, 2009), age stereotypes from the surrounding culture are internalised throughout life and influence self-definitions, functioning, and health. These beliefs, absorbed from an early age, become deeply embedded over time and influence how individuals perceive their own ageing process (Köttl et al., 2021; B. R. Levy, 2003, 2009).
Three studies indicated that internalised age stereotypes/norms were associated with reduced career enthusiasm and an unfriendly work climate (i.e., Stage 2 outcomes) (e.g., Billett et al., 2011; Rahn et al., 2021). Vickerstaff and Van der Horst’s (2021) study examined how older workers and their supervisors utilise stereotypes and age norms while discussing their work lives and their subsequent impact on retirement perceptions. They found a widespread belief that the older one gets, the worse one’s health, which motivates some to leave and others to stay in jobs, and that age norms tell employees they are now “too old” for employment, job changes, or training and promotion.
Although certain participants suggested that while learning opportunities were accessible to all employees, their attitudes ultimately determined whether they would seize these possibilities (Billett et al., 2011). For example, in another qualitative study, when asked about the respondents’ attitude towards receiving training, two of them replied, “Why should I go and do a manager’s course when I’ll never use it” and “I’m 65, so it’s hardly an issue, you know, I’ll be gone” (Billett et al., 2011, p. 383). Additionally, Rahn et al. (2021) found that internalised age stereotypes were significantly associated with lower social motivation. For example, older workers who internalise negative stereotypes were less likely to engage in positive social interactions and more likely to avoid them (Rahn et al., 2021).
The three studies reviewed in this section suggest that internalised age stereotypes and norms are associated with a range of Stage 2 career outcomes, particularly reduced career enthusiasm, lower social motivation, and less favourable work climate experiences. We next turn to perceived positive age stereotypes to examine how individuals’ perceptions of positive age-related stereotypes from others are associated with career-related outcomes.
Perceived Positive and Negative Age Stereotypes
This section reviews the literature on perceived age stereotypes, focusing on how individuals’ perceptions of age-based beliefs within their organisational environment relate to Stage 1 and Stage 2 career outcomes. We distinguish between positive and negative stereotypes and summarise the evidence for each, beginning with perceived positive age stereotypes and then turning to perceived negative age stereotypes.
Perceived Positive Age Stereotypes
Perceived positive age stereotypes refer to individuals’ exposure to perceived positive information or their beliefs about age-related information derived from others or their organisations (e.g., Chiesa et al., 2016; Meng et al., 2022). The stereotype content model is a framework for understanding stereotypes associated with different groups (e.g., younger and older) (Cuddy et al., 2008). Its authors highlighted two fundamental dimensions of social perception on which group stereotypes were categorised: warmth and competence. For instance, warmth-related stereotypes include trustworthiness and morality, while competence-related stereotypes include skill and creativity. Elderly individuals are valued for warmth and are considered kind, sincere, and warm (Cuddy et al., 2005). For example, older employees are often positively portrayed in terms of warmth stereotypes, such as trustworthiness, but negatively in terms of competence stereotypes, particularly in relation to technological competence and adaptability (Kroon et al., 2018).
Four quantitative studies examined the direct link between perceived positive age stereotypes and Stage 1 and Stage 2 outcomes (e.g., Chiesa et al., 2016; Gaillard & Desmette, 2010; Meng et al., 2022). No studies in our review showed an indirect relationship between them. One study examined the direct relationship between perceived positive age stereotypes and Pathway C: self-efficacy (i.e., Stage 1 outcomes) (Chiesa et al., 2016). Self-efficacy is a psychological concept that centres on people’s beliefs in their ability to influence their surroundings, affect their behaviours, and lead to desired results (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). For example, Chiesa et al. (2016) found that older workers’ occupational self-efficacy was significantly enhanced by organisation’s positive perceptions of their reliability and flexibility.
The remaining studies reported direct associations between perceived positive age stereotypes and Stage 2 outcomes (i.e., passion for career planning and equity in employment practices) (e.g., Gaillard & Desmette, 2010; Meng et al., 2022). For example, a study found that perceived positive age stereotypes were associated with older workers’ increased enthusiasm for individual career planning, lowering their willingness to retire early and increasing their motivation to learn and develop, more than exposure to negative stereotypes (Gaillard & Desmette, 2010). Another study on employees’ perception of their managers’ age-related attitudes found that age-discrimination experiences were linked to an increased risk of losing a job; however, perceived positive experiences were associated with a reduced risk (Meng et al., 2022).
The four studies reviewed in this section indicate that perceived positive age stereotypes are primarily associated with favourable career-related outcomes through direct links. Evidence from four quantitative studies indicates that such perceptions are related to enhanced self-efficacy at Stage 1 and to positive Stage 2 outcomes, including greater enthusiasm for career planning and more equitable employment practices. No evidence was identified for indirect associations between perceived positive age stereotypes and career outcomes in the reviewed studies. We next examine perceived negative age stereotypes, focusing on individuals’ perceptions of negative age-based beliefs in organisational contexts.
Perceived Negative Age Stereotypes
Perceived age stereotypes refer to employees’ perception of “the existence of workplace-based beliefs about older workers” held by their organisation (Hofstetter & Cohen, 2014, p. 360). Here, the focus is on the negative dimension of perceived age stereotypes, such as when workers perceive that their organisation endorses the negative characteristics associated with stereotyping older people as slow and incompetent (Hummert, 1999, p. 179).
Four studies found that perceived negative age stereotypes were directly related to Stage 1 and Stage 2 outcomes (Chiesa et al., 2019; Froehlich et al., 2023; Hofstetter & Cohen, 2014; Peters et al., 2019). Three studies examined the direct associations between perceived negative age stereotypes and Stage 1 outcomes (i.e., Pathway A: Organisational identification and Pathway C: Self-efficacy) (e.g., Chiesa et al., 2019; Froehlich et al., 2023). Froehlich et al. (2023) found a direct negative association between perceived negative age stereotypes about older workers and learning motivation (i.e., learning self-efficacy and intrinsic value). Peters et al.’s (2019) study noted that perceived negative age stereotypes amplified the adverse effects of age on older workers’ self-perceived employability. Furthermore, older employees who perceived negative age stereotypes in the organisation had a lower sense of identification with their organisation (Chiesa et al., 2019).
Another quantitative study found a direct link between perceived negative age stereotypes and Stage 2 outcomes (i.e., reduced career motivation) (e.g., Hofstetter & Cohen, 2014). Hofstetter and Cohen (2014) found that perceived (negative) age-related stereotypes were positively linked to intention to leave and early retirement.
Across the four reviewed studies, perceived negative age stereotypes are directly associated with Stage 1 outcomes, including organisational identification and self-efficacy, as well as Stage 2 outcomes related to reduced career motivation. Across the direct link studies reviewed in this category, evidence is more frequently reported for Stage 2 outcomes than for Stage 1 indicators within several subthemes, and the breadth of evidence differs across perceived forms of ageism. The following section shifts the focus from direct associations to evidence examining whether and how perceived age-related stereotypes and discrimination are indirectly linked to career outcomes via Stage 1 mechanisms.
Indirect Links Between Ageism Category 2 and Career Outcomes
This section reviews the indirect links between perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination (i.e., Ageism Category 2) and career outcomes. We organise the evidence into three mediating pathways (Stage 1): Pathway A—relationship with work/organisation (e.g., job satisfaction, organisational identification, work alienation), Pathway B—perceived work-related stress (e.g., job resources and demands), and Pathway C—self-efficacy. For each type of ageism—perceived age discrimination, internalised age stereotypes/norms, stereotype threat, and perceived negative age stereotypes—we outline how Stage 1 mechanisms have been found to connect with Stage 2 outcomes (e.g., reduced career motivation, diminished well-being, performance, and work climate) across the reviewed studies.
Perceived Age Discrimination
Nine studies showed that perceived age discrimination was indirectly associated with Stage 2 outcomes via Pathways A, B, and C (i.e., Stage 1 outcomes) (e.g., Dong et al., 2023; Fasbender & Gerpott, 2021; Madera et al., 2012; Peng, 2022; Volpone & Avery, 2013; Yeung et al., 2021). Four of these studies linked perceived age discrimination to reduced career motivation and diminished well-being via Pathway A (e.g., Dong et al., 2023; Peng, 2022), four linked it to reduced career motivation, diminished well-being, and negative performance via Pathway B (e.g., Yeung et al., 2021), and one linked it to an unfriendly work climate via Pathway C (Fasbender & Gerpott, 2021).
Three studies found that perceived age discrimination was indirectly related to reduced career motivation, including turnover intention and career truncation, through Pathway A (i.e., job satisfaction and work alienation). For example, Dong et al. (2023) showed that perceived age discrimination diminished well-being through Pathway A: work alienation. Madera et al. (2012) showed a direct relationship between perceived discrimination and Pathway A: job satisfaction partially mediated the impact of perceived discrimination on turnover intention. Volpone and Avery (2013) found that perceived age discrimination was indirectly associated with physical withdrawal (e.g., tardiness and intention to quit) through psychological withdrawal (i.e., Pathway A: work alienation).
Perceived age discrimination was also examined in relation to individual career outcomes through Pathway B: job resources and job demands, 1 highlighting associations with reduced career motivation (i.e., turnover intention), diminished well-being, and negative performance (i.e., work engagement) (Yeung et al., 2021). For example, perceived age discrimination was linked to reduced support (lower job resources), which in turn was linked to decreased work engagement and intention to remain in the job; also, perceived age discrimination was associated with increased emotional demands and workload (referred to as higher job demands), which was subsequently associated with decreased work engagement and increased work strain (Yeung et al., 2021).
One study found that perceived age discrimination contributed to an unfriendly work climate (i.e., tense colleague relationships) through Pathway C: Self-efficacy. Fasbender and Gerpott (2021) showed that older workers who experienced age discrimination in the workplace reported reduced career self-efficacy, which in turn negatively affected their willingness to share knowledge with younger coworkers.
Internalised Age Stereotypes/Norms
One study showed that internalised age stereotypes/norms indirectly linked to Stage 2 outcomes (i.e., unfriendly work climate) via Pathway A: Organisational identification (i.e., Stage 1 outcomes) (e.g., Rahn et al., 2021). Rahn et al. (2021) showed that a sense of belonging (i.e., Pathway A:Organisational identification) mediated the relationship between internalised age stereotypes and social motivation (i.e., the motivation to create and sustain social relationships). Specifically, internalised age stereotypes reduced sense of belonging, which in turn reduced social approach motivation (i.e., a growth-oriented interest in developing relationships with colleagues, such as having a sincere interest in them), while also increasing social avoidance motivation (Lavigne et al., 2011; Rahn et al., 2021).
Stereotype Threat
Nine studies showed that stereotype threat was indirectly linked to Stage 2 outcomes through Pathways A, B, and C (i.e., Stage 1 outcomes) (e.g., Manzi et al., 2019; Von Hippel et al., 2013, 2019).
Through Pathway A, stereotype threat was associated with reduced career motivation and negative performance via work-related attitudes such as work alienation, job satisfaction and organisational commitment (e.g., Von Hippel et al., 2013). One study further suggested that work alienation mediated the relationship between stereotype threat and occupational future time perspective, pointing to a link between negative work experiences and perceptions of remaining career opportunities (Manzi et al., 2019). Through Pathway B, stereotype threat, through rumination, leads to diminished well-being, reduced organisational commitment, lower job satisfaction, and increased turnover intention (Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1993; Von Hippel et al., 2019).
Two studies identified stereotype threat via Pathway C: self-efficacy, leading to reduced career motivation (i.e., turnover intention) and negative performance (i.e., work engagement) (e.g., Von Hippel et al., 2019). For example, Von Hippel et al. (2019) found that when individuals believed they had the resources necessary to effectively manage and overcome stressors (i.e., self-efficacy when appraising challenges), their belief mediated the relationship between age-based stereotype threat and job engagement, commitment, and intention to quit among older, but not younger, employees.
Perceived Negative Age Stereotypes
Four quantitative studies examined the indirect link between perceived negative age stereotypes 2 and Stage 2 outcomes (i.e., reduced career motivation) through Pathway A (i.e., work alienation and organisational identification) and Pathway C: Self-efficacy (e.g., Froehlich et al., 2023; Hofstetter & Cohen, 2014).
Three studies examined Pathway A as a mediator of the impact of perceived negative age stereotypes on reduced training and development motivation and on turnover intention (e.g., Chiesa et al., 2019; Hofstetter & Cohen, 2014). For example, Hofstetter and Cohen (2014) showed that the association between perceived negative age stereotypes and both turnover intentions and early retirement intentions was mediated by job content plateau (i.e., the stage at which an individual perceives their work as monotonous, tedious, and lacking in intellectual stimulation) (T. D. Allen et al., 1999). Also, Chiesa et al. (2019) showed perceived negative age stereotypes reduced employees’ psychological engagement by lowering their identification with the organisation; furthermore, this relationship was significant among older workers with high levels of occupational self-efficacy. Additionally, a negative correlation was found between institutionalised negative age stereotypes and motivation to learn (including subjective task value and learning self-efficacy), affecting older employees’ willingness to learn (Froehlich et al., 2023).
Across the reviewed studies, perceived age-related stereotypes and discrimination are indirectly linked to career outcomes through multiple Stage 1 mechanisms, including relationships with work and organisation, perceived work-related stress, and self-efficacy. Across different forms of perceived ageism, the evidence indicates that these Stage 1 pathways mediate the connection between age-related experiences and a range of Stage 2 career outcomes. The mediational evidence is concentrated in a subset of subthemes, particularly perceived age discrimination and stereotype threat, while fewer studies test comparable pathway models for other forms of perceived age-related stereotypes.
Before turning to the discussion, we outline our critical observations regarding the scope and limitations of the reviewed literature. The body of research reviewed here indicates a substantial gap in understanding how ageism translates into career outcomes. Although our synthesis identifies three mediating pathways that link ageism to career outcomes, namely relationships with work and organisation (Pathway A), perceived work stress (Pathway B), and self-efficacy (Pathway C), the empirical literature has examined these relationships in a largely fragmented manner. Studies have predominantly focused on establishing direct associations between ageism and either Stage 1 outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, occupational future time perspective) or Stage 2 outcomes (e.g., turnover intention, discriminatory practices), with few studies simultaneously examining both stages or the mediating mechanisms linking them. As illustrated in Table 4, among the studies examining perceived age-related stereotypes and discrimination, only a minority analysed mediating processes (e.g., 9 out of 31 studies on perceived age discrimination), while research on age stereotypes toward others and social context factors predominantly focused on direct associations. Even though there is consistent evidence that ageism relates to both sets of outcomes, only a limited number of studies examined how experiences of age discrimination translate into broader career consequences through underlying mechanisms.
In terms of methodology, quantitative studies constitute 69% of the reviewed research, providing statistical breadth, but often sacrificing the depth required to understand ageism as a lived experience. For example, existing research has found that stereotype threat is associated with reduced organisational identification and increased work alienation (Manzi et al., 2021; Von Hippel et al., 2013). However, cross-sectional surveys cannot reveal the underlying processes: under what circumstances employees begin to perceive stereotype threat, and how this sense of threat accumulates over time to erode their emotional connection with the organisation. Similarly, while quantitative studies establish that perceived age discrimination is associated with work alienation and turnover intentions (Peng, 2022; Volpone & Avery, 2013), cross-sectional surveys cannot reveal how this process unfolds over time. Existing research shows that perceived age discrimination is linked to reduced job resources and higher job demands (Yeung et al., 2021). However, these studies cannot capture how repeated discriminatory experiences gradually accumulate and progressively erode employees’ sense of belonging and commitment to the organisation. The scarcity of qualitative research (22% of the evidence base reviewed here) means that nuanced psychological processes, such as the gradual internalisation of age norms, remain under-explored. Relying heavily on quantitative data results in insufficient attention to contextual factors, which limits the applicability of research across different organisational settings.
Discussion
This review integrates extant research on the links between ageism and career outcomes in the contemporary workplace. Our proposed framework integrates and summarises the direct and indirect associations between various types of ageism (i.e., age stereotypes toward others and perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination) and career-related outcomes examined in previous empirical studies. At the same time, our review shows that the existing evidence remains uneven, with many studies focusing on direct associations while paying more limited attention to the processes through which ageism translates into broader career outcomes.
Our review distinguishes between and integrates various manifestations of ageism under the umbrella of age stereotypes toward others and perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination. It also unpacks the direct and indirect relationships between ageism and career outcomes in a model, which complements existing literature on understanding the mechanisms of how different types of ageism impact career outcomes. We also distinguish between two stages of career outcomes (i.e., Stages 1 and 2), where Stage 1 outcomes act as mediating pathways for Stage 2 outcomes. In other words, we propose three pathways (i.e., Pathways A, B, and C) that identify various career outcomes resulting from ageism and may operate independently or in combination, mediating the relationship between ageism and another set of career outcomes. This also reflects a broader limitation in the literature, as prior studies have often examined only selected forms of ageism or isolated outcomes, making it difficult to see how these mechanisms operate together.
This review can also be understood in relation to prior review studies. Previous reviews have addressed important aspects of workplace ageism, including ageist attitudes, employment barriers, and discursive constructions (e.g., Bae & Choi, 2023; Previtali et al., 2022). However, they have often given more attention to either individual experiences or organisational processes. Many have also focused mainly on older workers or particular occupational groups (e.g., Chen et al., 2024; Harris et al., 2018). In addition, although some previous reviews have noted relevant mediating variables (e.g., Cebola et al., 2023), relatively less attention has been paid to how these mechanisms may work together in shaping career-related outcomes. Against this background, the present review offers a more integrated synthesis of workplace ageism by examining its relationship with career-related outcomes at both organisational and individual levels, while also identifying the pathways through which these associations may unfold.
Our review makes three main contributions to the extant literature. First, we incorporate multiple facets of ageism to provide a holistic understanding of their links with career-related outcomes. This complements the previous reviews, which only included one aspect of ageism (e.g., perceived age discrimination or age stereotypes) and missed the opportunity to capture the nuances of such effects in a single model. Doing so enabled us to demonstrate the shared effects of different types of ageism and their single effects. Including perceptions of age stereotypes for oneself and towards others accommodates a balanced understanding of the outcomes of multiple stakeholders’ ageist perceptions: those whose behaviours lead to other individuals perceiving or experiencing ageism and those affected by such attitudes.
We also include both positive and negative stereotypes in the model. Although limited literature exists on the positive side, integrating both ends of the spectrum into a model can inform future researchers and suggest avenues for future research. Most of the studies included in this review focus on negative age meta-stereotypes in workplace contexts, which are commonly linked to adverse career outcomes (e.g., Bal et al., 2015; Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018). While positive meta-stereotypes (e.g., being perceived as sensible or dependable) may offer certain benefits, for example, existing evidence shows that positive meta-stereotypes of older people’s abilities are associated with higher levels of well-being (Fasel et al., 2021).
Second, our review presents two sets of career outcomes (Stages 1 and 2). A subset of the papers we reviewed examined only the direct links between either Stage 1 or Stage 2 outcomes; however, we learned there was a group of articles that assumed Stage 1 outcomes were mediators of Stage 2 outcomes. This understanding allowed us to suggest three mediating pathways, which facilitated a deeper understanding of the process through which ageism can impact careers. This finding can inform the development and testing of more nuanced theoretical models that better capture the indirect and multi-pathway relationships between ageism and career outcomes. These three mediating mechanisms indicated that ageism can have repercussions that affect several workplace functions. Informed by SCT, we confirm the critical role of the employee’s relationship with and perception of their workplace (Pathway A), their beliefs about their ability to perform effectively (Pathway C), and workplace stress (Pathway B). This denotes the importance of a safe environment where employees feel a sense of belonging and confidence in their abilities, without experiencing high levels of stress. Taking action to reduce perceptions of ageism will generate appealing career outcomes through these three pathways.
The categories that emerged from our integration of negative Stage 2 outcomes show that creating and sustaining an ageist culture not only impacts employees’ belongingness and self-efficacy (i.e., Stage 1 outcomes) but also yields several outcomes that put the organisation in a weak position in terms of managing and retaining its talent. This presents a strong business case for contexts where ageism is not dismissed, ignored, or poorly-handled. There is extensive evidence to show that outcomes outlined in Stage 2 are detrimental to employees’ performance and the organisational bottom line (e.g., Chiesa et al., 2019; Griffin et al., 2016).
A methodological contribution of our review is the incorporation of both qualitative and quantitative studies in our analysis. Although the inclusion of qualitative studies in reviews is increasing (e.g., Jones, 2004; Ronzi et al., 2018), the majority of reviews and meta-analyses studied still exclude qualitative studies. Had we excluded qualitative studies from our review, we would have missed the opportunity to incorporate age norms into our model, and therefore, would have had a less nuanced understanding of how social context can exacerbate ageism. Ojala et al. (2016) showed how different interaction contexts shape perceptions of ageism, and they highlighted that a gender- and context-sensitive approach to ageism research offers promising perspectives for further conceptual development.
Although a few existing reviews identify some mediating variables (e.g., Bae & Choi, 2023; Cebola et al., 2023), they list these variables together without distinguishing between various mechanisms of operation. These mediating variables can be divided into different pathways, each influencing the final outcome distinctly. Therefore, the underlying mechanisms of how these variables impact careers (Cebola et al., 2023) still need in-depth interpretation. Our model identified the nuances of these mediating variables and further interpreted them from the employee’s perspective. Beyond focusing on which variables from existing research act as mediators, we identified that ageism can influence subsequent career-related outcomes by shaping employees’ perceptions of the organisation and of work, stress, and abilities (i.e., Pathways A, B, and C). We demonstrate that when employees experience age-based discrimination or perceive age-based threats/stereotypes, their perceptions of their relationship with the organisation and work, their work stress, and their abilities can change (i.e., Pathways A, B, and C), which can positively or negatively impact their career behaviour and related outcomes. Without a nuanced perspective to shed light on these mediating variables, an understanding of how ageism influences employees’ career-related psychological and behavioural outcomes would be missed, and the subsequent career outcomes of ageism through these three mechanisms would also be overlooked. Therefore, we recommend that future researchers focus on the possibility of different manifestations of ageism impacting subsequent career outcomes through these three mechanisms.
Our integrated model, in line with the triadic model of reciprocal causation proposed by SCT (Bandura, 1986), confirms the value of SCT in studying workplace ageism, revealing the interplay between individual perceptions, behaviours, and the environment, which explains how ageism influences career outcomes. Specifically, environmental events can include broader socio-cultural or organisational climates (e.g., social or organisational age norms and negative meta-stereotypes), while individuals’ age perceptions operate at the cognitive level, as people may absorb age-related perceptions from the internal and external organisational environment and come to judge themselves or others in prejudiced ways. The behavioural level can be understood as their relevant work-related behaviours towards themselves or others, such as participating in training, deciding to quit, sharing knowledge with others, and offering training/bonus opportunities. These three pathways reflect SCT’s principle of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978). Age-related stereotypes and discriminatory treatment perceived within organisational settings shape individuals’ cognitions and emotions, which then influence career-related behaviours. The pathways do not operate in isolation but collectively show how ageism experienced in the work environment and internalised perceptions interact to shape individuals’ cognitive, emotional, and motivational responses to work (Fasbender & Gerpott, 2021). Our model demonstrates the usefulness of SCT as an integrative framework for understanding how ageism translates into career outcomes.
Future Research Directions
This review identifies several avenues for future research, which are outlined below. First, more research is needed to link its positive aspects to career-related outcomes to gain a fuller picture of how meta-stereotypes impact them. Stage 2 outcomes in our model show that while perceived ageism can have many undesirable outcomes (e.g., reduced career motivation, turnover intention, career truncation), it can also lead to positive ones (e.g., increased passion for career planning, enhanced training and development motivation). While only a few studies have shown positive outcomes, future studies can unpack the mechanisms underlying such effects. Figure 2 of our model suggests that one avenue for such research is to examine self-efficacy as an explanatory mechanism.
Second, future research should examine how different forms of ageism interact. We observed associations between various forms of ageism. For example, negative meta-stereotypes had an impact on employees’ age-based stereotype threat, which had an impact on subsequent career outcomes (e.g., Oliveira, 2021; Oliveira & Cabral-Cardoso, 2018). Future research needs to simultaneously consider the impact of various types of ageism on career outcomes to capture potential interactions among these types and their joint effects on career-related outcomes.
Third, future research should examine more explicitly whether the patterns identified in this review vary across cultural contexts. Prior research on ageism has shown that certain expressions of self-ageism and their individual predictors may vary across cultural contexts (Schuurman et al., 2022), suggesting the need for more culturally sensitive and comparative work in this area. In relation to workplace ageism and career-related outcomes, more evidence from a wider range of cultural settings is needed to assess whether the pathways identified in this review are context-specific or more broadly generalisable. Research designs that allow clearer cross-cultural comparison would therefore make an important contribution to this literature.
Fourth, methodological advances are needed. Although 69% of the studies included in our review had adopted a quantitative approach, they only examined the links between ageism and career outcomes through regression studies, which do not denote causal relationships, so future research should further examine the strength and direction of these relationships. In addition, we noticed a dearth of experimental design studies examining the causality of the proposed links. We invite future researchers to design experimental or quasi-experimental studies to explore causal effects. Also, we suggest that those interested in this line of research consider using less conventional types of data, including but not limited to social media posts and comments, ethnographic data, and other types of media products, such as TV shows and movies, which continue to shape individuals’ views about ageism.
Practical Implications and Limitations
Policymakers, managers, and actors in organisations can all contribute to improving workplace ageism. Therefore, we advocate a multifaceted approach to raise awareness of ageism and address the issues we identified in our review to achieve a win-win outcome for both organisational and individual career outcomes by promoting equality in organisational practices and age-friendly workplaces. These implications also build on conceptual work in the HRD field that links older workers’ employment patterns to key HRD domains, including training, career, and organisational development (Rocco et al., 2003).
First, as outlined in our review, policymakers and organisational gatekeepers should be fully aware of how age norms and negative meta-stereotypes in the social or organisational context threaten employees and negatively impact career-related outcomes. Our research demonstrates that diverse manifestations of ageism impact organisational and individual outcomes through three mechanisms: relationships with work and organisation, perceived work stress, and self-efficacy. Building on these three mechanisms, we derive specific practical strategies to inform age-inclusive organisational practices. As such, managers can effectively address the negative influence of ageism if they understand and navigate the operations of these three mechanisms. They need to be aware that maintaining an age-friendly climate in society and organisations contributes to improving employees’ relationship with their work and organisation and to reducing their age-based work stress and negative judgments or devaluation towards others or their abilities. Grounded in our model, we recommend that organisations take proactive steps to challenge negative age-related stereotypes and discriminatory practices. Specifically, organisations should implement targeted strategies to identify and mitigate age-based assumptions embedded in organisational culture and practices. As evidenced in our review, such negative age-based perceptions are linked to lower learning motivation, diminished self-efficacy, reduced organisational identification, and heightened turnover intentions among older employees.
As our model demonstrates, perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination are a primary component of ageism and can affect career outcomes, which we recommend organisations give increased attention to. In addition to developing an anti-ageism policy within organisations, it can be valuable to create a psychological safety space where employees can openly share and discuss experiences of ageism. Creating such safe spaces encourages communication across age groups and helps managers better understand employees’ perceptions of ageism in the organisation. This aligns with the concept of psychological safety, which fosters open dialogue, trust, and innovation in teams (Frazier et al., 2017). Safe spaces and exchanges help employees feel more connected to the organisation and to their work, promote managers’ awareness of employees’ experiences of discrimination, and help reduce the negative impact of ageism. Such initiatives can benefit individual workers’ career development and are valuable to organisations in increasing employee loyalty and commitment and creating a favourable organisational climate.
Recent HRD perspectives also emphasise that later-career HRD interventions should focus not only on employability but also on fostering a positive sense of self and inclusion for older workers (Warhurst & Black, 2024). However, existing research also cautions that current measures of learning may underestimate older workers’ growth motivation by focusing too narrowly on formal, educator-led learning processes, overlooking informal, strengths-based, and collaborative learning practices (Van Woerkom et al., 2023). HRD practitioners can be key in designing and delivering age-inclusive practices addressing these gaps. They can incorporate ageism-awareness content into leadership training, develop career pathways tailored for older workers (e.g., mentoring roles), and create intergenerational learning spaces. Such initiatives enhance an organisation’s inclusivity while leveraging the benefits of having multiple generations working together.
Although this review provides insights into the contemporary literature on ageism and career outcomes in the workplace, it is not without limitations. Given the multifaceted and complex nature of ageism, our framework’s presentation of the synthesis and summarisation of age stereotypes toward others, perceived age-related stereotypes/discrimination, and their manifestations in social contexts might be limited. Also, some of the relationships we reported and the hypothesised relationships we proposed reflect what previous research has already accomplished, and need further exploration to mature. We focused on studies published in English, and our search was limited to two databases (Web of Science and APA PsycINFO) with keywords related to ag*ism in the title or abstract, thus potentially excluding other age-based discriminatory studies in the workplace that did not use our search terms. This restriction may also have narrowed the cultural range of the evidence base included in the review. Although the included studies draw on different national settings, they do not provide a sufficient basis for a systematic cross-cultural comparison, and the review does not draw attention to these differences. As a result, the present review does not permit firm conclusions about whether and how the patterns identified in this review vary across cultural contexts. To provide a concise overview of the empirical evidence, we summarise the number of studies that support a particular relationship (e.g., “X studies found …”). This approach provides a useful basis for identifying patterns in the literature. Future research may build on this foundation by exploring methodological and contextual differences and incorporating effect size indicators to deepen understanding of the practical implications of observed relationships.
Finally, while we acknowledge that our review could have been more thorough had it included non-career-related outcomes, we believe that we have taken an important step toward unpacking ageism’s predominantly negative outcomes. Additionally, this study did not explore how ageism may intersect with other identity-based disadvantages such as gender or race. Prior research has shown that these identity factors can potentiate the experience and perception of ageism (Cebola et al., 2023). For instance, gendered ageism is recognised as a recurring theme, particularly in studies involving women in appearance-sensitive occupations (e.g., Handy & Davy, 2007; Spedale et al., 2014). Future research should adopt an intersectional perspective to explore how ageism intersects with other forms of disadvantage to shape career outcomes. Another limitation is that the approach treats all sources as equal, without assessing the quality of underpinning research. Future research might take a more critical approach to assess the relative strength of the pathways (in that some might have less robust evidence behind them than others).
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable feedback.
Ethical Considerations
Not applicable, as this study is based on a systematic review of existing literature and does not involve human participants.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data analysed in this study were obtained from publicly available published sources.