Randomized trial shows anti-ageism website reduces negative stereotypes and perceptions of conflict among different age groups, suggesting effective educational strategies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ageism (stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination based on age) negatively affects individuals' health, wellbeing, and livelihood. Systematic reviews recommend reducing widespread ageism through increasing awareness of ageism through theoretically-driven educational initiatives reaching large audiences. Accordingly, this investigation, rooted in the PEACE model, tested the impact of an online educational resource,"Taking Ageism Seriously (TAS)," on ageism awareness and reducing negative age-related stereotypes and perceived intergenerational tensions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants in two online studies were randomly assigned to either watch three educational videos from the TAS website or a control website (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). RESULTS: TAS condition (vs. control) condition participants reported lower agreement with negative stereotypes of older adults and young adults (Studies 1 and 2), lower perceptions of intergroup tensions (Studies 1 and 2), greater agreement with older adults as contributors to society (Study 1), and greater agreement with positive stereotypes of older adults and young adults (Study 2). Additionally, TAS participants' free responses of what they learned indicated awareness that ageism is problematic/harmful (49.6% Study 1; 59.6% Study 2) and involves discrimination (25.69%; 22.32%) and workplace ageism (25.30%; 27.68%). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Exposure to TAS showed promise as an effective tool for reshaping views of older adults and young adults and for challenging perceptions of intergenerational conflict. Given the pervasiveness and harmfulness of ageism, further explorations of time-effective, cost-effective, and user-friendly, online educational resources tackling ageism in an age-inclusive way seem warranted and timely.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Levy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: