| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
1 Department of Psychology, Université François-Rabelais, Tours, France.
2 Department of Cognition and Decision, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, France.
Address correspondence to EtÕenne Mullet, Quefes 17 bis, F-31830 Plaisance du Touch, France, E-mail: mullet{at}univ-tlse2.fr
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
IN the second half of the past century, major changes in the age distribution of populations were witnessed in the industrialized world, as well as in developing countries. Populations are rapidly aging and the increasing number of elderly and very old people raises new questions about their economic status as well as their role in family and society. "The allocation of public resources should not be judged by a comparison between age groups, but such comparisons are clearly important in the thinking of the American public today" (Schlesinger & Kronebush, 1994b
, pp. 207–208).
Answers to these questions are largely dependent on the way elderly people and the very old are, as individuals, perceived by the young. If young people and adults tend to perceive elderly people as still able to contribute positively to family and social life, that is to say if they perceive them as conscientious, open minded, and emotionally stable, they will probably be attentive to their needs (Huddy, Jones, & Chard, 2001). As children, they will show them respect and affection. As adolescents, they will ask them the help and advice parents are sometimes too busy to provide. As young adults, they will gladly secure them the necessary health care (Boaz, Hu, & Ye, 1999; Harootyan & Vorek, 1994). If, in contrast, they perceive elderly people as unable to contribute productively, that is to say if they perceive them as not conscientious, closed minded, and neurotic, they will probably be reluctant to dedicate to them much of society's common resources (Silverstein, Angelelli, & Parrot, 2001). "The more that an age group is seen as contributing to society, the smaller the tensions around government programs targeted to that group" (Schlesinger & Kronebush, 1994b, p. 207).
This issue is also largely dependent on the way elderly people and the very old perceive themselves as individuals. If they perceive themselves as unable to contribute productively to family and society, or if they perceive themselves as relieved of all responsibility to society's production system, they will probably be reluctant to dedicate much of their time to the growth of the common resources. In contrast, if they perceive themselves as still having responsibility and still being able to contribute, they will more likely accept extending the working period of their lives and be more attentive to the needs of the young (e.g., the need for education). According to Schlesinger & Kronebush (1994a), "Elders are particularly sensitive to the burdens their care creates for their extended family" (p. 182). They tend to be less supportive than younger people of expanded old-age health care and income maintenance schemes (Huddy et al., 2001).
This issue also largely depends on the way elderly people and the very old perceive the young. If they perceive the young as qualified and able to solve the many challenges posed by economic or social life, that is to say if they perceive them as conscientious, open minded, and emotionally mature, they will probably accept letting them possess a substantial part of the common resources. They will also have more confidence in the way the young make important family decisions (e.g., as regards to the proper treatment of elderly people). Evidence suggests that the elderly people are, in fact, one of the age groups more actively supporting government programs targeted to the young (Schlesinger & Kronebush, 1994a, 1994b).
Finally, this issue also depends on the way the young perceive themselves. If they perceive themselves as lacking in experience and foresight, they will probably accept sharing these resources with the old as well as showing them respect and consideration.
The objective of the present study was to uncover, in a multidimensional way, the perception held by respondents in a full range of age groups (young, middle-aged, and old) toward a full range of target age groups (young, middle-aged, and old).
Perception of People as a Function of Their Age
Early work in this area has suggested that old people are more negatively viewed than the young are. A complete review of this early work (Kite & Johnson, 1988) showed the following points: (a) attitudes toward elderly people were more negative than attitudes toward the young; and this difference in evaluation was reduced when (b) personality traits were used instead of measures of competencies; (c) when between-subjects designs were used instead of within-subject designs; and (d) when a large number of dependent measures were introduced in the design. According to the authors, people's evaluations are influenced less by age than other types of information (also see Lutsky, 1980). A multidimensional conception of age stereotypes appears necessary (also see Kite, Deaux, & Miele, 1991).
Several more recent studies have been based on this idea that stereotypes about people of various ages are multiple, with some being positive and others being neutral or negative. As an example, the study by Hummert, Garstka, Shaner, and Strahm (1994) aimed at uncovering the content of diverse stereotypes associated with old age by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. The methodology used was based on previous work by Brewer, Dull, and Lui (1981) and Schmidt and Boland (1986). Participants of various ages were asked to sort personality traits into groups representing different types of elderly individuals. Grouping was subjected to a hierarchical cluster analysis.
Young participants, as a group, produced 8 distinct clusters, corresponding to 8 distinct stereotypes. Three of these stereotypes were considered positive, and 5 were considered negative. Middle-aged participants produced 10 clusters, 4 positive and 6 negative. Elderly participants produced 12 clusters, 5 positive and 7 negative. As a result, middle-aged and elderly participants witnessed a more complex perception of the elderly people than the young, which is consistent with Linville's (1982) suggestion that people in general have a more complex representation of their own group than of other groups. There were, however, 7 shared clusters (Golden ager, Perfect grandparent, John Wayne Conservative, Shrew Curmudgeon, Despondent, Severely Impaired, and Recluse), and the number of adjectives classified as positive or negative did not vary much among the three age groups.
Another study by Hummert (1990) aimed at uncovering the content of stereotypes associated with age by college students. Contrary to what was observed in the previous study, in this study the two sets of clusters showed little similarity. The clusters associated with old age were approximately the same as those found by Hummert and colleagues (1994), but the clusters associated with young age were very different (e.g., Red Neck, Country Clabber, Nosy Neighbor, Loner, Member of the Underclass, and Homeless).
The participants subsequently estimated these clusters, on a 7-point scale, in terms of global attractiveness. Young age clusters were not seen as more attractive than old age clusters.
From these studies (also see Hummert, 1993), it seems safe to conclude that (a) young and elderly people are definitely not perceived in an unidimensionally positive–negative way, and (b), concerning the content of the clusters, the effect of the age of the subject to be judged (old vs. young) is much stronger than the effect of the age of the participants.
Perception of the Nature of the Aging Process
Other recent studies have been concerned with the perception of the nature of the aging process. As an example, the study by Heckhausen, Dixon, and Baltes (1989) aimed at uncovering belief systems about human development held by young, middle-aged, and old adults. Participants were asked to rate a set of 358 adjectives with respect to their desirability and with respect to three aspects of developmental increase: the degree to which it is shown to develop over the adult life span, the age at which it is expected to begin, and the age at which it is expected to end.
Among the items that received the highest ratings, as regards to the developmental increase, are the following: "knowledge of human nature, well read, mature, forgetful, sense of duty, wise, responsible, level headed, and understanding." These ratings were quite similar regardless of the participant's age.
Among the items that received the lowest ratings as regards to their onset (less than 25 years) we can cite the following: "wide interests, friendly, adventurous, industrious, intelligent, mentally healthy, and progressive." The highest ratings (more than 55 years) were for "forgetful, dignified, bitter, overcautious, disturbed, weak, melancholic, and queer."
As a result, it can be concluded that the nature of the aging process was conceived as both positive and negative. Similar findings were reported by Krueger and Heckhausen (1993). In addition, these authors showed that older participants were more optimistic about late-life development than were young or middle-aged participants.
The Present Study
The objective of the present study was twofold. First, we wanted to uncover not only the perceptions that one age group has about the members of other age groups as in Hummert (1990) or the perception that several age groups have about the same age group as in Hummert and associates (1994), but the perception held by respondents in a full range of age groups (young, middle-aged, and old) toward a full range of target age groups (young, middle-aged, and old). As a consequence, the design we chose involved numerous target age groups (young children to the very old) and numerous respondent age groups (young adolescents to the very old). Such a design is the only one allowing us to study independently (a) the effect of the target's age on perception, (b) the effect of the respondent's age on perception, and (c) the Target age x Respondent age interaction. One important question about the effect of the age of the target concerns the direction of the effect. In order to allow for detection of monotonic as well as nonmonotonic effects, no less than seven age targets have been considered. Another important question concerns the ingroup–outgroup debate (Tajfel, 1981). Do respondents of one age group perceive the members of their own age group differently (more favorably) than the members of the other groups?
Second, we wanted to study the perception toward age groups in a multidimensional way. Perceptions of people consist of a network of psychological characteristics, physical aspects, and role behaviors. In the present study we have, as in Heckhausen and colleagues (1989), focused on personality traits. It is the reason why we chose the five-factor model of personality as our model of intergenerational perception and the Gough Adjective Checklist as our measurement device (Gough & Gendre, 1982).
It has been repeatedly shown that the five-factor model gives a good account of the way people structure their knowledge about themselves, their conjoint, and even distant people (Parker & Stumpf, 1998; Wiggins, 1996). It is thus highly likely that the perception of the personality traits held by various age groups structures itself around the five factors usually found in these studies: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 1996). Note that the five-factor model has already been found to be a useful device for classifying data regarding conceptions of human development (Krueger & Heckhausen, 1993).
The main difference between the present study, the study by Heckhausen and colleagues (1989), and the study by Krueger and Heckhausen (1993) lies in the fact that (a) we studied the way in which people of different ages were perceived and not the way in which the aging process was perceived; (b) as a result, the differences between age groups (the aging process) were indirectly assessed, by tracing the changes in perceptions from one target age group to another; and (c) the five-factor model was empirically tested before being used as a convenient classification scheme.
Hypotheses
Several hypotheses can be put forward. The first hypothesis regarded the importance of the effect of the target's age relative to the effect of the respondent's age. On the basis of the work by Hummert (1990, 1993), Hummert and colleagues (1994), and Krueger and Heckhausen (1993), we hypothesized that the effect of the target's age would be strong and in any case stronger than the effect of the respondent's age.
The second hypothesis concerned the Target age x Respondent age interaction. On one hand, there seems to be a strong consensus among respondents as regards to which traits best define the young, the middle-aged, and the old (Hummert et al., 1994; also see Heckhausen et al., 1989). On the other hand, a whole stream of research (Brewer, 1979) has been devoted to studying what is called the ingroup–outgroup effect. According to these studies, the members of the ingroup are judged more favorably than the members of the outgroup. If this effect applies in the present study, elderly people would not judge young people in the same favorable way they judge elderly people. Our hypothesis was, however, that the ingroup–outgroup effect would be present but would not be very strong as compared with the effects of the main factors, especially compared with the effect of the target's age factor (telling an adolescent that some unknown individual is 80 years old does not only amount to giving information about age group membership).
The subsequent hypotheses concerned each of the five expected factors: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. They were mainly derived from the work by Heckhausen and colleagues (1989) and Krueger and Heckhausen (1993). Conscientiousness is a factor that refers to competence, order, and dutifulness (McCrae & Costa, 1996). It is typically loaded by adjectives such as mature, wise, and responsible, which Heckhausen and colleagues (1989) have shown to be strongly associated with human development. A linearly increasing pattern of scores was thus expected, with young children and children scoring lower on this factor and middle-aged, elderly, and very old adults scoring higher. Because the target's age factor is likely to introduce notable variations in ratings for the conscientiousness dimension, the Conscientiousness factor was expected to be a strong one, explaining a substantial part of the variance in ratings.
Openness is a factor that refers to fantasy, aesthetics, and feelings (McCrae & Costa, 1996), although some controversies still exist around this factor (De Raad, 1998). It is typically loaded by adjectives such as intelligent, progressive, and industrious, which Heckhausen and colleagues (1989) have shown to be associated with early onset in human development. It is also well known that the decrease in intellectual performance in old age is mainly attributable to a decrease in "fluid" aspects of intelligence (Bashore, Ridderinkhof, & van der Molen, 1998; Salthouse, 1996), the component closest to openness. A linearly decreasing pattern of scores was thus expected, with young children and children scoring higher on this factor and with elderly adults and the very old scoring lower. For the same reason as the one presented for the Conscientiousness factor, the Openness factor was expected to be an important one, explaining a substantial part of the variance in ratings.
As regards to Neuroticism, we expected that the scores on this factor would vary according to an inverse U-shaped pattern. This factor refers to anxiety, anger, hostility, and depression. Adolescence is, on one hand, considered by the public in general and by many authors (Elkind, 1984) as a tumultuous period, full of uncertainties and contradictions. On the other hand, depression in late life, for instance, is frequently evoked by authors (Blazer, 1982). It is thus expected that Neuroticism scores would peak when the considered target is an adolescent (and maybe a young adult), decrease when the considered target is middle aged, and peak again, although to a much lesser extent, when the target is a very old person. As a consequence, it was expected that Neuroticism, along with Openness and Conscientiousness, would be an important factor.
As regards to Extroversion and Agreeableness, we were in a more difficult position for formulating hypotheses. Extroversion refers to warmth, gregariousness, and assertiveness. Agreeableness refers to trust, straightforwardness, and altruism. These dimensions would probably be viewed more as personal characteristics than as developmental characteristics. As a consequence, we expected the scores on these factors not to vary much as a function of the target's age, and also that these two factors would explain lower parts of the variance in ratings than the three preceding factors.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The 867 participants were distributed among six groups: young adolescents (11–13 years old, mean age = 12.3, SD =.91, with 70 girls and 71 boys), adolescents (15–17 years old, mean age = 15.8, SD =.67, with 70 girls and 70 boys), young adults (19–26 years old, mean age = 21.5, SD = 2.75, with 75 women and 72 men), adults (38–45 years old, mean age = 42.9, SD = 4.0, with 71 women and 71 men), older adults (58–66 years old, mean age = 62.6, SD = 2.90, with 71 women and 73 men), and the very old (75–93 years old, mean age = 79.2, SD = 4.01, with 82 women and 71 men).
The participants were comparable in social composition (as measured by their own current or former occupational status or by that of their parents or spouse). Of the 282 young adolescents and adolescents, 47% were from blue-collar families. Of the 147 young adults, 51% were from blue-collar families or were themselves blue-collar workers. Of the 142 adults, 55% were blue-collar workers or, when they did not have paid work, were spouses of blue-collar workers. Of the 297 older adults and very old people, 50% were, or had been, blue-collar workers or spouses of blue-collar workers. The rest of the participants in each group were from white-collar families. The elderly participants lived at home.
Material
The French version of the Adjective Checklist (Gough & Gendre, 1982) was used. It is a list of 300 adjectives (see Table 1). These adjectives were printed on the left sides of several sheets of paper. On the right sides of these sheets, in front of each adjective, were printed 10-point response scales with extremities labeled as "totally disagree" and "completely agree."
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
, Figure 1). As a consequence, a five-factor solution was chosen. It accounted for 37% of the total variance. Factor loading is given in Table 1.
|
Effects of Age and Gender on the Factor Scores
A separate analysis of variance, with a Gender x Participant age x Target Age, 2 x 6 x 7, design, was conducted on the factor scores for each of the five factors. Because of the large number of participants, the alpha threshold was set at.001.
In each case, the variable that explained most of the variance was the age of the target. Figure 1 shows the effect of this variable on four of the five factors. For Conscientiousness, the curve was clearly ascendant. Young children and children were seen as not very conscientious, whereas adults and elderly people were seen as the most conscientious people. The very old people's score was slightly lower than the elderly people's score, at F(6, 783) = 195.86 (p <.001).
For Neuroticism, the curve was inverse U shaped. Adolescents were seen as the most emotionally unstable, at F(6, 783) = 38.66 (p <.001). For Openness, the curve was clearly descendent, contrary to the curve corresponding to Conscientiousness. Elderly people and the very old were seen as much less open than children and adults, at F(6, 783) = 132.52 (p <.001).
For Introversion, the curve was U shaped. Adults were seen as less introverted than children and elderly people, at F(6, 783) = 50.99 (p <.001). For Agreeableness, the pattern was very close to the pattern seen for Introversion. Adults were seen as less agreeable than other age groups, at F(6, 783) = 29.98 (p <.001).
In each case, the effect of the respondent's age variable was significant but explained a smaller part of the variance than the effect of the target's age variable. Elderly persons see people in general as more conscientious, that is, F(5, 783) = 13.03 (p <.001), and more open, that is, F(5, 783) = 15.22 (p <.001), than do adults or children. Children and adults see people in general as more neurotic than do elderly people, that is, F(5, 783) = 7.04 (p <.001). Middle-aged adults see people in general as more introverted than children and the very old; F(5, 783) = 18.93 (p <.001). Adolescents and young adults see people in general as more agreeable than do middle-aged or elderly people, that is, F(5, 783) = 6.85 (p <.001).
In each case, the Respondent age x Target age interaction was also significant. The part of variance explained by the interaction was, however, typically small. Figure 1 also shows the Respondent age x Target age interaction for each of the first four factors. The main impression is that the target's age effect is the same regardless of the respondent's age. There was a strong consensus between respondents of various ages to consider that Conscientiousness increases with age, Openness decreases with age, Neuroticism peaks at adolescence, and adults are less introverted than children or elderly persons. Close examination of the curves did not show that elderly or very old people saw themselves as more open than the others or that children saw themselves as more conscientious than the others. Differences exist in the form of the curves between age groups but to a very small extent.
Finally, the gender effect was significant in only one case: Neuroticism. Men, more than women, see people as more neurotic regardless of their age; F(1, 783) = 8.94 (p <.001).
Complementary Analysis
A complementary analysis of variance was conducted on a subset of the data in order to assess the possible ingroup–outgroup effect. The whole set of data was decomposed into three subsets. The first subset was the ingroup subset: young adolescents estimating adolescents, young adults estimating young adults, adults estimating adults, and so on. The second subset was the outgroup subset: young adolescents estimating young adults, middle-aged adults, elderly people, or the very old; young adults estimating adolescents, middle-aged adults, elderly people, or the very old; adults estimating adolescents, young adults, middle-aged adults, and elderly people, and so on. The third subset was composed of the data regarding young children and children taken as targets, and of the data obtained with the older adolescents group.
The ingroup–outgroup variable was composed by opposing the ingroup and outgroup subsets. Participants see members of their same age group as slightly more conscientious (0.55 vs. 0.36), slightly less neurotic (-0.01 vs. 0.17), slightly more open (-0.02 vs. -0.20), and slightly less introverted (-0.25 vs. -0.12). However, none of these differences were significant.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Our second query concerned the Target age x Respondent age interaction. Our hypothesis was that the interaction effect would not be very strong, compared with the effect of the age of the target factor, and particularly that the ingroup–outgroup effect would be weak. The interaction effect explained on average 17% of the explained variance, which was clearly less than what was observed for the target's age effect but was nevertheless substantial. In every case, the interaction term was significant at the chosen threshold. From one age group of respondents to another, there were differences in the way personality characteristics were attributed to children, adolescents, adults, and elderly persons. These differences were, however, never such as to alter the overall pattern observed. An ingroup–outgroup effect was observed, but it was weak indeed.
Our third query concerned the Conscientiousness factor for which a linearly increasing pattern of scores was expected, with young children and children scoring lower on this factor, and with middle-aged, elderly, and very old adults scoring higher. This is what was observed except at the last stage of life. The very old were seen as less conscientious than elderly people, although much more conscientious than adolescents and children. A parallel can be drawn between this finding and the finding by McCrae and colleagues (2000) that show that adolescents were lower in Conscientiousness than the middle-aged and the older adults. In addition, as hypothesized, the Conscientiousness factor was an important factor; actually, it was the most important.
Our fourth query concerned the Openness to Experience factor, for which a linearly decreasing pattern of scores was expected. This is what was observed, but the real decrease started at the young adult age level. This finding is somewhat parallel with findings by McCrae and colleagues (2000) showing a decrease in Openness from the age of 18 to the age of 30 and beyond. In addition, as hypothesized, the Openness factor was an important factor, although substantially less important than the Conscientiousness factor. The Openness factor received in fact a very broad definition in this study. Its meaning was clearly much more extensive than the one found in many previous studies (McCrae & Costa, 1996); in particular, it was seen as characterizing more than just intellectual curiosity.
The fifth question concerned the Neuroticism factor, for which a U-shaped score pattern was expected. It was hypothesized that Neuroticism scores would peak when the considered target was in adolescence, dip when the considered target was middle aged, and again increase, although to a lesser extent, when the target was very old. What was observed was somewhat different. Neuroticism scores were very low when the targets were children, very high when the targets were adolescents, and neither high nor low when the targets were middle aged, elderly, or very old. This finding is consistent with findings by McCrae and associates (2000) showing that higher scores in Neuroticism are observed among the 14- to 17-year-olds. In addition, as hypothesized, the Neuroticism factor was an important factor, second in importance after the Conscientiousness factor.
The last two queries concerned the Extroversion and Agreeableness factors, for which it was expected that the scores would not vary much as a function of the target's age. An Introversion factor was actually observed. This factor explained a much lower part of the variance than the first three already mentioned. Although the definition of this factor appeared to be narrower than that found in previous studies, its identification was easy. The pattern of scores appeared U shaped with an opposition between adolescents, young adults, and middle-aged adults and the other targets. Members of these three groups were seen as less fearful, less calm, less quiet, less timid, and less complaining than members of the four remaining groups.
An Agreeableness factor was also observed. This factor explained the lowest part of the variance. The pattern of scores was similar to that found for the Introversion factor. Interestingly, middle-aged adults were perceived as much less agreeable than all the other target age groups.
Some other results deserve comments. Important variations have been shown in the way people use Introversion adjectives to describe others. In particular, the middle-aged see people in general, and children and adolescents in particular, as more introverted than others do. In daily life, the middle-aged are usually in a position of dominance and power toward young adults, adolescents, and elderly people. As a result, they tend to represent impressive figures commanding discretion and reserve (two visible attributes of introversion) to the other members of the family or society. This can also help to explain why middle-aged adults see people in general as less agreeable than others do. People in charge of important decisions are often challenged and criticized by others (note that middle-aged adults were perceived as the least agreeable group.)
It is not clear, however, why people, as they age, consider others as more conscientious (honest), more open (optimist), and less neurotic; in other words, why elderly people see others in general in a more positive (less negative) way than adolescents and adults do. This can be viewed as one correlate of the progress in benevolence and wisdom with age (Ardelt, 2000; Smith & Baltes, 1990).
In summary, concerning personality characteristics, some answers can be brought to the questions raised in the introduction. First, adolescents, adults, and elderly people perceive themselves and others more or less in the same way that others perceive them. This is not to say that differences in perception do not exist between age groups or from an ingroup–outgroup perspective, but these differences do not obscure the basic fact that a strong consensus exists as regards to the attribution of personality characteristics to various age groups in the population. All different age groups seem to internalize the same stereotypes about different age groups.
Second, adolescents, adults, and elderly people perceive themselves and others in a very differentiated way. Each age group is perceived with its strengths and its weaknesses, that is to say, in both positive and negative ways. This is highly consistent with Kite and Johnson's (1988) conclusion regarding which differences in overall evaluation would be reduced when between-subjects designs are used as well as a large number of personality traits, as was the case in the present study. If only measures of physical competencies had been used, the balance would have probably been inclined to the exclusive advantage of the young.
Third, the very old are perceived and perceive themselves in a more differentiated way than other adult groups. Their main attributed characteristics are (a) conscientiousness (mainly maturity), a very desirable characteristic (Heckhausen et al., 1989), (b) introversion, a blend of desirable (calm) and not so desirable (fearful) characteristics, (c) agreeableness, another very desirable characteristic, and (d) lack of openness (mainly lack of confidence and lack of alertness), a not very desirable characteristic. From the point of view of overall degree of positivity–negativity of perception, the very old compare rather well with the middle-aged, which are in the most powerful positions in society. The main characteristics attributed to the middle-aged were (a) conscientiousness (mainly confidence), a desirable characteristic (Heckhausen et al., 1989), (b) a lack of agreeableness (coldness), a not so desirable characteristic, and (c) the relative absence of neuroticism. Note also that the middle-aged were not perceived as very open.
Fourth, elderly people were perceived in a way that leads us to believe that both themselves and others consider them as still able and productive. Their profile was very close to that of the middle-aged. They perceived themselves and are perceived by others as equal in conscientiousness and much more agreeable than the middle-aged. Maybe this could compensate for a noticeable decrease in perceived openness. In view of the fact that negative aging stereotypes can contribute to negative health outcomes among elderly persons (Levy, Hausdorff, Hencke, & Wei, 2000), this appears as a reassuring finding.
Finally, and from a more theoretical standpoint, strong evidence was gathered regarding the importance and meaning of one controversial factor: Openness to Experience (the fifth factor). As stated recently by De Raad (1998), "a burning question is whether ... to dismiss the fifth factor and direct further energy toward the articulation of a universal Big Four" (p. 122). Other authors have also recently expressed skepticism toward the Openness factor (Ashton, Lee, & Vernon, 2000; Cheung et al., 2001; Egan, Deary, & Austin, 2000; McKenzie, 1998; Shafer, 1999). The present study showed considerable support for this factor: (a) it is one of the main constituents of the intergenerational perception structure, (b) its meaning, in this context, was clear (i.e., active, imaginative, and enterprising), and (c) scores on this factor behaved as hypothesized, that is to say, young people were perceived as more open to experience than mature adults and elderly people, regardless of the age of the perceiver. Although these results have been found in a European (French) sample, it is probable that they would apply to the intergenerational perception in America.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Received for publication December 9, 2002. Accepted for publication December 23, 2002.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
Young adolescent; 
Adolescent; 
Young adult; 
Middle-aged; • Elderly;
Very old.