Gender,Race,and Age

Abstract

While stereotypes about gender, race, and age (particularly old age) have been studied independently, few have examined the content of compound stereotypes that consider the intersection of gender, race, and age. Using a within-subjects design, we examined stereotypes as a function of target gender (male, female), race (Black, White), and age across the life span (adolescent, young adult, middle-aged, young-old, and old-old). Participants rated 20 target groups on 10 attributes representative of either an agentic (e.g., ambitious) or communal (e.g., considerate) orientation. Participants were presented only with categorical information (e.g., Black, 85-year-old, males), and ordering of categorical information and target groups was counterbalanced across participants. We hypothesized differential effects of target gender and race as a function of age. Multivariate analyses of variance on each attribute revealed significant main effects that supported traditional stereotype research, but significant interactions revealed a more complicated picture. Overall, results showed that while gender stereotypes about agency and communion generally hold up across the life span, they are more applicable to White than Black targets. Results also supported the notion that we hold unique stereotypes based on multiple social categories rather than simply perceiving one social category as more salient than another, which was best exemplified in the case of Black female targets that were less likely to be perceived in gender stereotypic ways across the life span. We suggest stereotype research needs to shift to accommodate for the complexity and diversity of real people.

Keywords

ageism life course midlife ethnic differences social constructs older adults

Although stereotypes about people exist based on a wide range of social categories, a search of the literature reveals a significant body of research on the content of stereotypes based on gender (e.g., Deaux, 1995; Eagly & Mladinic, 1989; Prentice & Carranza, 2002), race or ethnicity (e.g., Devine & Elliot, 1995; Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986; Katz & Braly, 1933), and old age (e.g., Cuddy & Fiske, 2002; Hummert, Garstka, Shaner, & Strahm, 1994; Schmidt & Boland, 1986). Although stereotypes about gender, race or ethnicity (hereafter referred to as race), and age have been studied independently, fewer studies have examined the content of compound stereotypes, which consider these characteristics in combination. For example, is a 75-year-old African American female perceived primarily as a woman, an old person, Black, or some combination? Furthermore, do the stereotypes we hold based on gender and race apply to all age groups?

Few studies of gender and race stereotypes consider age, and if they do, they rarely compare more than two age groups (e.g., young, old; Bassili & Reil, 1981; Kite, Deaux, & Miele, 1991). We believe that the dichotomy of young and old does not capture the true variability in stereotypical beliefs. To consider gender, race, and age irrespective of one another does little to capture the complexities inherent in real people and social groups. The goal of the present study was to explore the content of compound stereotypes involving gender, race, and age across the life span. Toward this end, we examined race and gender stereotypes across five different target age groups (i.e., adolescent, young adult, middle-aged, young-old, and old-old).

Communal and Agentic Stereotypes

To study gender, race, and age stereotypes across the life span, we focused on the dimensions of agency and communion, which have been widely examined in the gender stereotype literature (e.g., Leaper, 1987) and to a lesser extent in research related to race (e.g., Livingston, Rosette, & Washington, 2012) and age (e.g., Kite, 1996). First proposed by Bakan (1966), agency and communion are two fundamental qualities of human existence. Communal orientations reflect concerns with interpersonal issues (e.g., peers, family, relationships, and other people’s interests), whereas agentic orientations reflect concerns about meeting one’s own needs such as accomplishing a specific task (Bakan, 1966; Block, 1983). Because gender, race, and age stereotypes can all be characterized according to the agentic-communal dichotomy, examining how perceptions of others’ agency and communion vary by age with respect to target gender and race is one way to begin to understand the content of compound stereotypes.

Although we focused on perceptions of agency and communion for this particular study, the stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) is also useful for making predictions about the content of compound stereotypes. According to SCM, two basic dimensions can be used to capture stereotypes of social groups: competence (e.g., independent, skillful) and warmth (e.g., friendly, trustworthy). Stereotyped groups tend to be perceived high on one dimension and low on the other. Whether a particular out-group is perceived as competent or warm will depend on perceived power and status. For example, high-status groups (i.e., men) are more likely to be perceived as competent but cold, whereas low-status groups (i.e., elderly) are more likely to be perceived as warm but incompetent (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002). Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2008) have noted that although agency does not fully capture the competence dimension, agency and communion are closely related to the dimensions of competence and warmth.

To think about how gender and race might intersect across the life span, we will first summarize what is known about perceptions of agency and communion based on traditional gender, race, and age stereotype research, which tends to focus on one social category at a time. While findings are straightforward with regard to gender and age stereotypes, general conclusions are more difficult to draw about race.

Gender Stereotypes

Research on gender stereotypes reveals that men are perceived as having more agentic, instrumental, or masculine traits (e.g., ambitious, dominant), whereas women are perceived as having more communal, expressive, or feminine traits (e.g., warm, nurturing; Ruble & Martin, 1998; Spence, 1993). Similarly, men are consistently perceived as high in competence and low in warmth, whereas as the opposite is found for traditional women (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2002). Some research has suggested that gender stereotypes are more applicable to Whites than to other minority groups (Ghavami & Peplau, 2012; Turner & Turner, 1994). The current study will examine whether these stereotypes apply across the life span and vary by race.

Age Stereotypes

Research examining differences in perceptions of agency and communion based on target age have consistently demonstrated that agency is more commonly associated with youth (e.g., Hale & Hewitt, 1998; Kite et al., 1991). Although many studies have not found age differences in perceptions of communality (e.g., Hale & Hewitt, 1998; Kite et al., 1991), there is some evidence that people may actually become more communal as they get older (Diehl, Owen, & Youngblade, 2004). Furthermore, research using the SCM demonstrates that older adults are consistently perceived high on the warmth dimension, which is closely related to communion (Cuddy et al., 2008). Taken together, these findings suggest that perceptions of agency are likely to decrease with age, while perceptions of communion may increase.

Race Stereotypes

Research by Galinsky, Hall, and Cuddy (2013) revealed that the content of Black stereotypes are more masculine than the content of White stereotypes, which suggests that Blacks may be perceived as more agentic than Whites. However, research focused specifically on differences in perceptions of agency and communion as a function of race was difficult to find. The only research we did find suggested that expectations about agency and communion might be different for Black versus White males and females (e.g., Livingston et al., 2012; Turner & Turner, 1994).

Experimental research by Livingston et al. (2012) found that while Black female and White male leaders (targets were described as senior vice presidents who worked for a Fortune 500 company) were not penalized for expressing dominance, Black male and White female leaders were. Livingston et al. argued that the Black male and White female leaders were perceived more negatively for displaying agentic versus communal qualities because displays of dominance are inconsistent with stereotypic expectations and seen as more of a threat.¹ Although Livingston et al. did not measure stereotype content directly, their research suggests that Black men are expected to be less agentic than White men but that we hold fewer expectations about Black women in this domain. Thus, research on race differences in agency and communion is somewhat inconsistent and inconclusive. In addition, neither of these studies considered the impact of target age and so we hope that our study can shed some light on racial differences in agency and communion as a function of gender and age.

Research on Compound Stereotypes

While some research has suggested that age may outweigh other social categories when it comes to stereotyping, these studies are typically limited to comparing young versus old (e.g., Bassili & Reil, 1981; Kite et al., 1991). For example, Bassili and Reil (1981) asked participants to rate either a 35- or 70-year-old target who varied by gender, occupation, and ethnicity (Canadian Indian, White Canadian) and found that in contrast to the young targets, the old targets were perceived to have similar characteristics regardless of their gender, occupation, and ethnicity. While there is some evidence that age may be more salient and have more influence in the case of very young or very old targets (e.g., Andreoletti & Leszczynski, 2008), other research suggests that stereotypes are more complex and that people do hold unique stereotypes based on multiple social categories. For example, research shows that age stereotypes vary by gender with participants sorting photos of older adults into gendered categories such as Grandmotherly, Bag Lady, and John Wayne Conservative (Brewer, Dull, & Lui, 1981; Hummert, 1990; Schmidt & Boland, 1986).

While few studies have considered the intersection of gender, race, and age on stereotype content, a growing research literature has examined the intersection of gender and race (e.g., Eagly & Kite, 1987; Galinsky et al., 2013; Ghavami & Peplau, 2012; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glas, 1992). In a series of such studies, Galinsky et al. (2013) demonstrated that the content of race stereotypes is gendered and has real-life consequences. They found that both implicit and explicit stereotypes of Blacks are more masculine in content than are stereotypes about Whites (or Asians). The consequences of this were reflected in several contexts. For example, Blacks were more likely than Whites or Asians to be selected for leadership roles and participate in sports thought to require masculine (vs. feminine) characteristics. However, it remains to be seen how such stereotypes might be impacted by age.

While many studies have considered the influence of two social categories such as gender and race (e.g., Ghavami & Peplau, 2012; Stangor et al., 1992) or gender and age (e.g., Arbuckle & Williams, 2003; Fabes & Martin, 1991) on person perception in a variety of contexts, we could find only two studies that examined stereotypes based on gender, race, and age (i.e., Turner & Turner, 1992, 1994). Following the now well-known study of gender stereotypes and mental health by Broverman and colleagues (Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970), Turner and Turner (1992) asked a large sample of psychologists to rate a “mature, healthy, socially competent” person. Each participant was assigned to rate either an African American or race-unspecified (assumed White) man or woman in their late 20s, late 40s, or late 60s.

Turner and Turner’s (1992) findings were consistent with the gender stereotype literature, as female targets were rated as more communal regardless of race or age and men as more agentic than women. Consistent with age stereotype research, targets in their late 20s and 40s were perceived as more agentic than older targets regardless of sex or race although these differences were smallest for White male targets. Although the psychologists’ perceptions of agency and communion were consistent with prior research on gender and age stereotypes, a more complex picture emerged when college students (not psychologists) were the perceivers. A subsequent study (Turner & Turner, 1994) found that while college students made similar ratings of agency based on target gender and age, they rated older Black targets as more agentic than older White targets, and ratings of communality varied by target gender, age, and race. While the research on compound stereotypes is limited, these studies illustrate the complexity of individuals’ beliefs about others and the need for more current research.

Although a few studies have considered the influence of gender, race, and age on stereotype content, none have taken a life span approach, as they have been limited to perceptions of only a few age groups (e.g., Turner & Turner, 1992, 1994). In the present study, we examined people’s perceptions of targets based on gender, race, and age, including adolescents, young adults, middle-aged adults, young-old adults, and old-old adults. Because research on age stereotypes is usually restricted to old age, we thought it was important to examine whether there was consensus regarding stereotypes beginning earlier in the life span as well as whether gender and race stereotypes persist across the life span.

Hypotheses

Considering previous research using the agentic-communal dichotomy, we made several predictions about how perceptions of agentic and communal traits might vary by the gender, race, and age of targets. Based on past research examining gender and age stereotypes separately, we expected to find main effects of gender and age. Specifically, we hypothesized that female targets would be perceived as more communal and less agentic than male targets (e.g., Ruble & Martin, 1998; Spence, 1993). We also expected that ratings of agency would be higher for younger than for older targets (e.g., Hale & Hewitt, 1998; Kite et al., 1991). Although past research has found few differences in perceptions of communion based solely on age (e.g., Hale & Hewitt, 1998; Kite et al., 1991), these studies were restricted to only two age groups (young, old). Thus, given some evidence that people become more communal with age (e.g., Diehl et al., 2004; Guttmann, 1994) and that older adults are perceived as more warm (but less competent) than younger adults (Cuddy et al., 2008), we hypothesized that perceptions of communal traits might increase with target age, especially when participants are asked to make ratings across multiple age groups.

With regard to race stereotypes, the existing research literature was insufficient to make strong predictions about main effects of race on agentic and communal traits. Although some research suggests that White targets might be perceived as more agentic and less communal than Black targets (e.g., Livingston et al., 2012; Turner & Turner, 1994), other research suggests the opposite because Black stereotypes are more masculine than White stereotypes (Galinsky et al., 2013).

As the goal of the present article was to examine the content of compound stereotypes, we were most interested in interactions of target gender and race with age. As the literature on compound stereotypes was not sufficient for making specific predictions about higher order interactions, our analyses were exploratory in this area.

Our goal was to look for general patterns in the data and to see whether gender and race stereotypes would hold up across the life span. Overall, we expected traditional gender stereotypes about agency and communion to be strongest for White targets during young and middle-adulthood and weaker later in the life span when older targets are more likely to be perceived as less agentic regardless of gender or race (Ghavami & Peplau, 2012; Hale & Hewitt, 1998; Kite et al., 1991; Turner & Turner, 1994).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 134 undergraduates (46 male, 88 female) from a public, state university in the Northeast. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 18.7, SD = 1.5), and according to self-reports, 105 were White, 9 were Black, 14 were Latino, 3 were Asian, 2 were other, and 1 did not select a racial category. Participants received research credit as part of a course requirement or extra credit.

Measures and Materials

A pilot study was conducted to determine which agentic and communal traits would be used. One hundred thirty-two undergraduates rated items from the original Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975). Forty-four students rated each category by indicating whether the item was related to stereotypes based on age (i.e., young, old, neither), gender (i.e., male, female, neither), or race (i.e., Black, White, neither). We calculated the percentage of participants who indicated that the trait was stereotypical for each category. Traits included in the final questionnaire were the five stereotypical agentic items (aggression, ambitious, business oriented, competitive, dominant) and five communal items (awareness of others, considerate, devoted, home-oriented, understanding) that ranked highest on more than one social category (i.e., race, age, and gender). For example, 95% of participants rated home-oriented as being stereotypically associated with female, and 80% of participants rated the same trait as being stereotypically associated with old. We did this to ensure that we had enough traits to represent each social category.

Target groups

Target groups were formed by combining and varying gender (male or female), race (Black or White), and age (15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95) of the social group. Participants were presented only with categorical information (e.g., Black, 85-year-old, males). Ordering of categorical information was counterbalanced across participants so that target race was first (Black, 85-year-old, males), target gender was first (male, Black, 85-year-olds), or target age was first (85-year-old, Black males). Because we wanted to assess cultural stereotypes, we used general labels, which are more likely to measure stereotypic beliefs than are specific targets with individuating information (Kite & Johnson, 1988).

Trait ratings

Using bipolar scales, participants rated 20 social groups (Black or White, male or female, 15-, 25-, 45-, 65-, and 85-year-olds or 15-, 35-, 55-, 75-, and 95-year-olds) on 10 characteristics, representative of either an agentic orientation (aggressive, ambitious, skilled at business, competitive, dominant) or a communal orientation (aware of others feelings, considerate, devoted to others, home-oriented, understanding). All target groups (e.g., White, 35-year-old, females) were presented in random order (counterbalanced across participants) on a single page, and participants rated each target group on a single trait per page.

Participants made ratings using a variation of a visual analog scale, which consisted of a line with seven vertical bars. Participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they believed different social groups exhibited each trait by circling the bar that best reflected their belief. Moving left to right the scale for each trait went from very to not at all (e.g., very competitive, not at all competitive). Responses were coded as one through seven, with higher scores indicating higher levels of a particular trait. Alternative forms of the questionnaire were created for counterbalancing the order of the target groups and trait ratings.

Procedure

We chose a within-subject design both because a between-subjects design was impractical given the number of target groups and also because we wanted to maximize our ability to detect differences in the content of stereotypes across the life span. Age stereotypes are more often revealed in within- versus between-subject designs (Kite, Stockdale, Whitley, & Johnson, 2005).

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 counterbalanced versions of the questionnaire and rated 20 target groups on a single trait before proceeding to the next trait.² Half of the participants were presented with social groups that were Black or White, male or female, 15-, 25-, 45-, 65-, and 85-year-olds, and the other half rated social groups that were Black or White, male or female, 15-, 35-, 55-, 75-, and 95-year-olds. This was done to maximize the number of age groups while keeping the number of social groups rated by each participant to a reasonable number.

Participants were given survey packets, which included a brief demographic questionnaire followed by the social group trait ratings. Written instructions informed participants that they would be asked to make generalizations about different social groups. Specifically, they were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed that different social groups exhibit various traits. To ensure that participants felt comfortable making the ratings, we emphasized the fact that we knew it was a difficult task, and we were asking them to make generalizations about a group and not any particular individual. A sample item was provided using a target group and trait that were not included in the study to make sure participants understood the instructions and how to use the rating scale. See Appendix for specific instructions.

Results

Data were screened for assumption violations and missing information (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). No adjustments or transformations were necessary. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations for all target attribute ratings by gender, race, and age. Data analyses included performing three-way within-groups multivariate analysis of variance on each of the 10 attributes.³ For statistical parsimony, trait ratings were collapsed across target age groups resulting in five age groups, adolescents (15-year-olds), young adults (25–35 years), middle-aged adults (45–55 years), young-old adults (65–75 years), and old-old adults (85–95 years). These age groups are also consistent with those most commonly used in the developmental research literature. The dependent variables were the attribute ratings, and the independent variables were target gender (male, female), race (Black, White), and age-group (adolescent, young, middle-aged, young-old, old-old). Follow-up analyses for the significant multivariate analyses of variance included Bonferroni-corrected multivariate pairwise comparisons. Results for main effects are presented first, followed by higher order interactions.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Target Attribute Ratings by Gender, Race, and Age.

Target		15	25–35	45–55	65–75	85–95
Agentic attributes and target age
WM	Aggressive (M, SD)	5.03 (1.4)	4.86 (1.3)	4.10 (1.3)	3.19 (1.7)	2.40 (1.6)
BM		5.53 (1.5)	5.20 (1.2)	4.24 (1.4)	3.32 (1.6)	2.69 (1.8)
WF		4.28 (1.6)	3.80 (1.4)	3.58 (1.3)	2.67 (1.4)	2.17 (1.4)
BF		4.79 (1.6)	4.42 (1.4)	3.87 (1.4)	3.03 (1.6)	2.82 (1.7)
WM	Ambitious (M, SD)	4.74 (1.7)	5.78 (1.2)	4.85 (1.3)	3.64 (1.4)	2.67 (1.3)
BM		4.38 (1.8)	5.45 (1.3)	4.62 (1.2)	3.51 (1.3)	2.73 (1.5)
WF		4.85 (1.6)	5.72 (1.2)	4.63 (1.3)	3.43 (1.3)	2.63 (1.4)
BF		4.72 (1.7)	5.46 (1.2)	4.43 (1.3)	3.42 (1.4)	3.25 (1.8)
WM	Business oriented (M, SD)	2.80 (1.3)	5.34 (1.2)	5.04 (1.2)	4.26 (1.5)	3.41 (1.7)
BM		2.65 (1.3)	4.82 (1.2)	4.69 (1.2)	3.78 (1.5)	3.04 (1.7)
WF		2.65 (1.4)	4.94 (1.2)	4.69 (1.2)	3.68 (1.5)	3.02 (1.6)
BF		2.50 (1.3)	4.53 (1.2)	4.38 (1.2)	3.56 (1.5)	2.91 (1.7)
WM	Competitive (M, SD)	6.00 (1.5)	5.79 (1.5)	4.53 (1.7)	3.44 (1.6)	2.59 (1.6)
BM		6.07 (1.4)	5.71 (1.4)	4.64 (1.4)	3.32 (1.6)	2.56 (1.6)
WF		5.40 (1.5)	4.94 (1.5)	3.93 (1.4)	2.69 (1.2)	2.11 (1.4)
BF		5.51 (1.5)	5.13 (1.5)	4.10 (1.4)	2.92 (1.4)	2.80 (1.8)
WM	Dominant (M, SD)	4.18 (1.6)	5.28 (1.3)	5.02 (1.2)	4.30 (1.5)	3.59 (1.8)
BM		4.46 (1.6)	5.26 (1.4)	5.08 (1.3)	4.21 (1.5)	3.84 (1.9)
WF		3.69 (1.6)	4.59 (1.3)	4.32 (1.1)	3.44 (1.5)	3.22 (1.8)
BF		4.02 (1.6)	4.75 (1.4)	4.70 (1.3)	3.87 (1.6)	3.72 (1.9)
Communal attributes and target age
WM	Awareness of others (M, SD)	2.90 (1.5)	4.42 (1.5)	4.73 (1.2)	4.68 (1.6)	4.54 (1.8)
BM		2.76 (1.4)	4.20 (1.4)	4.54 (1.3)	4.51 (1.5)	4.40 (1.9)
WF		3.47 (1.6)	5.34 (1.5)	5.51 (1.3)	5.24 (1.6)	5.16 (1.8)
BF		3.36 (1.6)	5.02 (1.4)	5.24 (1.2)	5.19 (1.4)	5.01 (1.8)
WM	Considerate (M, SD)	2.83 (1.3)	4.34 (1.2)	4.72 (1.3)	4.99 (1.5)	5.24 (1.8)
BM		2.65 (1.4)	4.05 (1.2)	4.57 (1.1)	4.89 (1.5)	5.05 (1.8)
WF		3.24 (1.3)	4.74 (1.3)	5.16 (1.2)	5.38 (1.5)	5.48 (1.7)
BF		3.01 (1.3)	4.33 (1.4)	4.90 (1.1)	5.28 (1.4)	5.18 (1.6)
WM	Devoted (M, SD)	2.78 (1.4)	4.40 (1.4)	4.94 (1.2)	5.32 (1.5)	5.15 (1.7)
BM		2.70 (1.4)	4.34 (1.3)	4.80 (1.2)	5.08 (1.4)	5.18 (1.7)
WF		3.29 (1.5)	5.05 (1.3)	5.48 (1.2)	5.55 (1.4)	5.64 (1.6)
BF		3.29 (1.6)	4.60 (1.5)	5.20 (1.4)	5.57 (1.3)	5.30 (1.7)
WM	Home oriented (M, SD)	3.12 (1.4)	4.36 (1.3)	5.11 (1.2)	5.53 (1.4)	5.43 (1.8)
BM		2.92 (1.3)	4.12 (1.5)	4.84 (1.3)	5.27 (1.4)	5.57 (1.7)
WF		3.44 (1.4)	4.87 (1.4)	5.57 (1.3)	5.79 (1.4)	5.90 (1.6)
BF		3.40 (1.5)	4.59 (1.5)	5.34 (1.3)	5.79 (1.4)	5.74 (1.6)
WM	Understanding (M, SD)	2.86 (1.4)	4.21 (1.2)	4.56 (1.3)	4.67 (1.7)	4.42 (1.9)
BM		2.72 (1.4)	4.16 (1.3)	4.46 (1.3)	4.47 (1.6)	4.36 (1.9)
WF		3.39 (1.6)	4.96 (1.4)	5.26 (1.2)	5.07 (1.8)	4.88 (2.0)
BF		3.28 (1.5)	4.55 (1.3)	5.00 (1.4)	5.01 (1.7)	4.81 (1.8)

Note. WM = White male; BM = Black male; WF = White female; BF = Black female.

Main Effects for Gender, Race, and Age

All of the main effects for target gender were statistically significant except for ambition (agentic). As expected, male targets had significantly higher mean scores for the agentic attributes (aggression, business orientation, competition, and dominance), and female targets had significantly higher mean scores for all of the communal attributes (awareness of others, considerate, devotion to others, home orientation, and understanding; see Table 1).

Similar to gender, all of the main effects for target race were statistically significant except for ambition (agentic). White targets had significantly higher mean scores for business orientation (agentic) as well as the five communal attributes. Black targets had significantly higher mean scores on the agentic attributes of aggression, competition, and dominance. See Table 1 for attribute means. In addition, several of these main effects were qualified by statistically significant higher order interactions with age that are discussed later.

All of the main effects for target age were statistically significant. Post hoc pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni adjustments were performed to assess significant mean target age-group differences. For the agentic attributes, adolescent targets had the highest mean scores for aggressive and competitive, and young adult targets had the highest scores for ambition, business orientation, and dominance. Conversely, the lowest mean scores for the agentic attributes were found for the oldest targets (85–95 years) for aggression, ambition, competitive, and dominance. The exception was for business orientation where the lowest mean score was found for the youngest (15 years) targets (see Table 1). For the communal attributes, the highest mean scores were for young-old and old-old targets for considerate, home orientation, and devotion to others. The highest mean scores for awareness of others and understanding were found for the middle-age and young-old target groups. Conversely, all of the lowest scores for the target communal attributes were found for the adolescent age-group (see Table 1).

Two-Way Interactions With Target Age

For the Gender × Age interactions, all of the agentic attributes except business orientation produced significant interactions, whereas awareness of others was the only communal attribute that produced a significant interaction. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations of gender, race, and age, Table 2 for agentic interactions, and Table 3 for communal interactions. Pairwise comparisons for awareness of others showed that while female targets were rated as significantly more aware than male targets at all ages, ratings of awareness varied by age-group within each gender. Specifically, for female targets, ratings of awareness of others were significantly lower for adolescents (15-year-olds), but there were no differences at any other point in the life span. There was more variability across age groups in ratings of awareness for male targets, with awareness significantly increasing until middle-age and then leveling off. When examining the pairwise comparisons for the agentic traits, two patterns emerged.

Table 2.

ANOVA Summary Table for All Main Effects and Interaction of the Five Agentic Attributes.

Attribute	Pillai’s trace	F	p
Aggressive
Gender	.35	72.37	<.01
Race	.24	41.20	< .01
Age	.65	59.98	< .01
Gender × Race	.08	11.79	< .01
Age × Gender	.28	12.91	< .01
Age × Race	.05	1.66	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.02	0.48	ns
Ambitious
Gender	.00	0.19	ns
Race	.02	2.72	ns
Age	.75	95.30	<.01
Gender × Race	.06	8.09	<.01
Age × Gender	.16	6.39	<.01
Age × Race	.19	7.45	<.01
Age × Gender × Race	.06	1.96	ns
Business oriented
Gender	.23	41.36	<.01
Race	.19	31.12	<.01
Age	.76	102.37	<.01
Gender × Race	.05	7.52	<.01
Age × Gender	.04	1.28	ns
Age × Race	.07	2.51	<.05
Age × Gender × Race	.05	1.68	ns
Competitive
Gender	.28	51.44	<.01
Race	.05	7.16	<.01
Age	.76	102.69	<.01
Gender × Race	.11	15.67	<.01
Age × Gender	.20	8.34	<.01
Age × Race	.05	1.55	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.09	3.22	<.05
Dominant
Gender	.23	39.63	<.01
Race	.13	19.86	<.01
Age	.51	33.71	<.01
Gender × Race	.08	12.23	<.01
Age × Gender	.09	3.16	<.05
Age × Race	.06	2.13	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.07	2.39	ns

Note. df = 1,133 for gender and race and 4,130 for age. The partial η² values for each effect are the same as the reported Pillai’s trace values. ANOVA = analysis of variance.

Table 3.

ANOVA Summary Table for All Main Effects and Interaction of the Five Communal Attributes.

Attribute	Pillai’s trace	F	p
Awareness of others
Gender	.32	64.26	<.01
Race	.05	6.42	<.05
Age	.63	56.03	<.01
Gender × Race	.00	0.03	ns
Age × Gender	.08	2.77	<.05
Age × Race	.02	0.69	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.01	0.47	ns
Considerate
Gender	.22	37.44	<.01
Race	.08	11.48	<.01
Age	.68	67.64	<.01
Gender × Race	.01	1.79	ns
Age × Gender	.04	1.22	ns
Age × Race	.05	1.77	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.00	0.12	ns
Devoted
Gender	.28	53.32	<.01
Race	.05	6.30	<.05
Age	.64	58.84	<.01
Gender × Race	.03	4.20	<.05
Age × Gender	.05	1.74	ns
Age × Race	.06	1.90	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.12	4.59	<.05
Home oriented
Gender	.23	40.67	<.01
Race	.05	6.84	<.05
Age	.70	76.38	<.01
Gender × Race	.00	0.10	ns
Age × Gender	.02	0.74	ns
Age × Race	.04	1.24	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.07	2.29	ns
Understanding
Gender	.27	49.19	<.01
Race	.04	4.84	<.05
Age	.60	48.68	<.01
Gender × Race	.01	1.21	ns
Age × Gender	.03	0.89	ns
Age × Race	.02	0.57	ns
Age × Gender × Race	.09	3.26	<.05

Note. df = 1,133 for gender and race and 4,130 for age. The partial η² values for each effect are the same as the reported Pillai’s trace values. ANOVA = analysis of variance.

First, except for ambitious, the traditional gender stereotype of men being more agentic (aggressive, competitive, dominant) held up across the life span at every point but in the oldest age-group (85–95) where gender differences were not significant. Second, ratings of agentic traits tended to be highest in young adulthood for both males and females and declined significantly after that, revealing significant age differences within in each gender for the duration of the life span. In the case of ambition, female targets were rated as significantly more ambitious than male targets as adolescents, equally ambitious as young adults, less ambitious as middle-aged and young-old adults, and more ambitious again in the oldest age-group.

Finally, for the Race × Age interactions, only two of the agentic attributes, ambition and business orientation, produced significant interactions. For ambition, White targets were rated as more ambitious than Black targets through middle age. There were no significant race differences in the young-old group, and Black targets had higher mean ambition scores in oldest age-group. For business orientation, White targets were rated as significantly more business oriented than Black targets across the life span. Pairwise comparisons between each age-group revealed similar patterns within each racial category until old age. Ratings of business orientation were lowest for adolescents, significantly higher for young adults, stable in middle-age, with significant declines after age 55. However, declines in business orientation were not as significant in old age for Black targets as they were for White targets. All other race by age interactions were statistically nonsignificant.

Three-Way Interactions

Results indicated that 3 of the 10 attributes produced significant 3-way interactions, 1 agentic (competitive) and 2 communal (devotion to others, understanding). For competitive, Pillai’s trace was .09, F(4, 130) = 3.22, p = .015, partial η²= .09. Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments revealed that ratings for the oldest Black female targets were driving the interaction effect. As can be seen in Figure 1, the main effect for age and gender held up across the life span until old age where there were no differences in ratings of competitiveness for Black female targets between the young-old and old-old age groups. Furthermore, older Black female targets were not significantly different from older male targets in either racial category and were rated as significantly more competitive than older White female targets.

For devotion to others, Pillai’s trace was .12, F(4, 130) = 4.59, p = .002, partial η²= .12. As can be seen in Figure 2, ratings of devotion were lowest for adolescent targets and tended to increase across the life span, peaking for the young-old targets. Pairwise comparisons between racial categories within each gender across each age-group revealed no race differences for male targets at any age. By contrast, White female targets in the young, middle-aged, and old-old age groups were rated as significantly more devoted to others than were Black female targets in those age groups. Thus, traditional gender stereotypes regarding communion were stronger for White versus Black targets.

A similar pattern was revealed for understanding, Pillai’s trace was .09, F(4, 130) = 3.26, p = .014, partial η²= .09. As can be seen in Figure 3, understanding ratings were lowest for adolescents and peaked in middle-age. Female targets were perceived as more understanding than male targets regardless of race. However, while there were no differences in ratings across the life span for male targets by race, there were some racial differences for female targets. As with devotion, White young and middle-aged female targets were rated as more understanding than their Black counterparts. These findings once again suggest that traditional gender stereotypes are more often applied to White versus Black women.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the content of compound stereotypes across the life span from adolescence to old age. Specifically, we set out to determine how perceptions of agentic and communal attributes vary when gender, race, and age are considered together. While researchers have argued for the need to consider the intersection of multiple social categories in psychology research (Cole, 2009) and a growing number of studies have examined the intersection of two categories such as gender and race (e.g., Galinsky et al., 2013; Ghavami & Peplau, 2012), or gender and age (e.g., Arbuckle & Williams, 2003; Fabes & Martin, 1991), our study is one of the first to consider the intersection of gender, race, and age on stereotype content.

Our results support traditional gender stereotype research and also shed more light on perceptions of agency and communion with regard to age and race. Our research also adds to the literature by examining whether gender and race stereotypes hold up across the life span. Finally, our research provides additional support for the notion that we hold unique stereotypes based on multiple social categories rather than simply perceiving one social category as more salient than another. This is best exemplified in the case of Black female targets that were less likely to be perceived in gender stereotypic ways across the life span.

Gender Stereotypes Across the Life Span

At the most basic level, our study provides evidence that gender stereotypes about agency and communion hold up across the life span, especially for White targets. Consistent with past research showing gender differences in agency and communion (e.g., Ruble & Martin, 1998; Spence, 1993), male targets were generally rated as more agentic and female targets as more communal. These predicted main effects of gender were significant across the life span for all communal traits and held up across the life span at every age-group but in the oldest old for most of the agentic traits.

For the traits that produced significant Gender × Age interactions, it is important to note that these interactions were driven by age differences within each gender, not by gender differences within each age-group. For example, while ratings of awareness of others were consistent for female targets across the life span after adolescence, ratings for male targets were more variable and steadily increased across the life span until leveling off after middle age. Thus, these results suggest that age differences in perceptions of agentic and communal traits are also influenced by target gender.

The only exception was for the agentic trait of ambition. While there was not a main effect of gender for ambition, a significant interaction with age showed that female targets were perceived as more ambitious than male targets at several points in the life span, including in old age. Although we do not know why female targets were sometimes rated as more ambitious than male targets, perceptions of ambition could be related to the variability of social roles across the life span. As research has shown that social roles can account for gender differences in perceived agency and communion (e.g., Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Jackson & Sullivan, 1990), future research could examine the influence of social roles on stereotype content across the life span.

Age Stereotypes Across the Life Span

Consistent with past research demonstrating that older adults are perceived as less agentic (e.g., Hale & Hewitt, 1998; Kite et al., 1991) and less competent (Cuddy et al., 2008), younger targets were generally rated higher on agentic traits than were older targets across the life span. Although past research has not always found age differences in perceptions of communal traits (e.g., Hale & Hewitt, 1998; Kite et al., 1991), our study did find that ratings of communal traits generally increased with target age. These findings are consistent with research that shows a tendency for older adults to become more communal with age (e.g., Diehl et al., 2004). Our findings regarding perceptions of agency and communion across the life span also support the SCM, which finds that older adults are typically rated as high on warmth but low in competence in contrast to younger adults (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002; Cuddy et al., 2008).

While past research is restricted to only a few points across the life span (i.e., young, old), our study is the first to examine agency and communion across the life span from adolescence to very old age. This allowed us to see that for both men and women, perceptions of agency are at their height in young adulthood and decline significantly beginning in middle age and into old age.

Race Stereotypes Across the Life Span

As past research examining race stereotypes related to agency and communion was limited and inconclusive, we were unsure of what we would find with regard to race stereotypes about agency and communion across the life span. Our results suggest that race stereotypes about agency might depend on domain as our findings varied by specific agentic trait. For example, White targets were perceived as more ambitious and business oriented than were Black targets. These findings are consistent with work by Livingston et al. (2012), which suggested that at least in the domain of business, Blacks (men in particular) are expected to be less agentic than Whites. These findings are also consistent with the SCM, which would predict that White targets would be perceived as higher status and therefore higher in agentic traits (Cuddy et al., 2008). An interaction with target age revealed that this was only true for targets through middle age, suggesting that traditional race stereotypes may be less salient in old age. While there were no race differences for young-old targets, the finding was reversed in old-old age when Black targets were perceived as more ambitious than White targets.

By contrast, White targets were perceived as lower in all other agentic attributes (aggression, competitive, and dominance) and more communal overall than were Black targets. Findings for these agentic traits are more consistent with Galinsky et al.’s (2013) research finding that Black stereotypes are considered more masculine in their content than stereotypes of other racial groups. Although these findings may seem to be in contrast with the SCM, not all of the attributes we used to operationalize agency in our study completely capture the competence dimension. While ambition and business skill seem closely related to competence, the agentic traits of aggression, competitive, and dominance could be perceived as more masculine than competitive in nature. Thus, a closer look at the specific agentic traits may account for our results.

The agentic traits of aggression, competitive, and dominant can be interpreted in several ways. In the context of our study, they may have been perceived as relating more to the physical rather than to the intellectual domain, which could explain our findings. This is consistent with research by Kunda, Sinclair, and Griffin (1997), which reveals that specific traits may be given different meanings depending on the stereotypes that are activated. In their study, the trait of aggression was interpreted as physical violence in the case of a construction worker but verbal abuse in the case of a lawyer. In our study, where participants rated 20 different social groups on a single page, “Black, 25-year-old males” could have activated stereotypes about young Black men that led them to interpret the trait descriptors in a certain way. If this is indeed the case, then our results are consistent with other stereotype research showing that Blacks are perceived as aggressive, dominant, and competitive (e.g., Devine & Elliot, 1995). Future research using a free-response methodology (e.g., Niemann, Jennings, Rozelle, Baxter, & Sullivan, 1994) could examine how stereotype content varies across domains.

Compound Stereotypes Across the Life Span

Given our focus on understanding how target gender, race, and age influence perceptions of agentic and communal traits when considered together, we were most interested in the results of our three-way interactions. Although statistical power was limited, three attributes produced significant three-way interactions: competitive, devotion to others, and understanding. What stands out in these interactions is that in each case, Black female targets do not fit with the traditional gender stereotypes of women as less agentic and more communal. Specifically, Black female targets were perceived to be just as competitive as men in old age regardless of race and lower on several communal traits in adulthood and old age when compared with White female targets. This provides further evidence that social categories are interdependent and cannot be easily separated, as they often are in experimental studies of stereotype content. Our findings support Neuberg and Sng’s (2013) theory of social perception, which argues that age, gender, and race form an interactive unit that people use as cues for shaping their own behavioral goals and strategies.

Our findings are also consistent with recent research demonstrating that race is gendered (Galinsky et al., 2013; Johnson, Freeman, & Pauker, 2012). Furthermore, research by Johnson et al. (2012) suggests that Black women (and Asian men) make up their own atypical social categories that are subtypes of typical race and gender stereotypes. Likewise, Ghavami and Peplau (2012) found that stereotypes about Black women (and other minority women) are different from traditional gender or ethnic stereotypes and that ethnic stereotypes most often apply to men, while gender stereotypes most often apply to Whites. Our study builds on recent research involving the intersection of gender and race by adding the category of age. Taken together, significant interactions on many attributes revealed a somewhat more complicated picture indicating that when gender, race, and age are all taken into account, as would be the case in real world social interactions, traditional stereotypes may not apply.

Limitations and Future Directions

To maximize our ability to measure stereotypes of multiple social groups, we used a within-subjects design with general descriptions of targets, which as been shown to result in greater differences between groups (Kite & Johnson, 1988). Although we did not necessarily consider our within-subjects design a limitation, it did limit the number of trait ratings we could ask participants to make. Because each participant rated 20 different social groups, we had to limit the number of trait ratings to only 10 traits within the agency/communion dichotomy. While we chose traits based on their applicability to the categories of gender, race, and age independently, it is unlikely that they fully capture beliefs about any particular social group or subtype based on multiple social categories. However, given the complexity of our design, using well-known traits was a prudent first step.

Although our study was the first to examine gender, race, and age across the life span, because we had so many age groups, we limited race in our study to Blacks and Whites. While much of the past research on racial stereotypes has focused on Blacks and Whites (e.g., Devine & Elliot, 1995), there is a growing body of research examining stereotypes of other racial and ethnic groups such as Asian Americans and Latinos (e.g., Galinsky et al., 2013; Ghavami & Peplau, 2012). Given the increasing diversity of our society, with the minority population expected to become the majority by 2043 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), compound stereotypes related to these different social groups needs to be explored further.

Finally, given our sample size and the complexity of our study, we did not have enough statistical power to consider participant gender or other participant social category differences. Furthermore, because our sample was limited to college students and only about 20% of our participants were racial minorities, the generalizability of our findings is limited. With 20% of our population expected to be over the age of 65 by 2030 and some of the fastest growing segments of our older population being ethnic minorities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), it is important to consider the influence of the social categories of the perceiver on the content of compound stereotypes. While there is some evidence that stereotype content (particularly related to age) may vary by perceiver age and gender (Hummert et al., 1994; Knox, Gekoski, & Kelly, 1995; North & Fiske, 2013), other studies have found that stereotypes do not differ significantly by perceiver race, student status, region, or age (Fiske et al., 2002; Niemann et al., 1994). Perceiver differences should be less likely when assessing cultural (vs. individual) stereotypes, which were the focus of our study. Regardless, given the changing demographics of our population, future research should examine whether compound stereotypes also vary by the gender, race, and age of the perceiver.

Conclusion

Our results contribute to the vast stereotype literature by being the first to examine the content of gender, race, and age stereotypes across the adult life span from adolescence through old age. We chose these particular categories because unlike other social categories such as social class or sexual orientation, these categories are easily recognized the moment that we meet someone. There is a large body of research that shows that we make judgments about people based on their physical appearance (see Zebrowitz, 1997 for a review) and that our stereotypes about others are automatically activated (Banaji & Hardin, 1996).

Our results demonstrate that while gender stereotypes about agency and communion generally hold up across the life span, they are more applicable to White than Black targets. By contrast, perceptions of agency and communion based on race appear less consistent across the life span. Returning to the question we asked in the first paragraph of our introduction: Is a 75-year-old African American female perceived primarily as a woman, an old person, or some combination? Our results reveal that Black older women do not fit with traditional gender, race, and age stereotypes but create their own unique category. As our results reveal that stereotype content does indeed vary when gender, race, and age are considered together, we suggest that the literature needs to shift to accommodate for the complexity and diversity of real people.

As our society is becoming increasingly diverse both in terms of ethnicity and age while at the same time racial and ethnic categories are becoming increasingly blurred, gender roles are rapidly changing in the younger generation, and as the baby boomers are redefining old age, there is a growing need to understand the content and consequences of compound stereotypes. While others have argued for the need to understand the intersection of gender and race in stereotype research, we hope that our study encourages others to add age into the equation as we continue to strive to understand the content and consequences of stereotypes across the life span.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Carrie Andreoletti is an Associate Professor of Psychological Science and the Coordinator of Gerontology at Central Connecticut State University. Her research focuses on the content and consequences of age stereotypes and the benefits of intergenerational service-learning for both young and older adults. She earned her PhD in social and developmental psychology from Brandeis University.

Jennifer P. Leszczynski is a Professor of Psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University. Her research focuses on the contextual specificity of masculinity and femininity and gender stereotypes across the lifespan. She earned her PhD in lifespan developmental psychology from West Virginia University.

William B. Disch is an Adjunct Professor of Psychological Science at Central Connecticut State University where he teaches all levels of basic and applied research methods. He has been working with the older adult population, mostly in community-based research settings studying HIV/AIDS, sexual behavior and risk, environmental stress, influenza and pneumonia vaccination, depression and mental health, medication and health literacy, leisure, and culture. He earned his PhD in experimental psychology from the University of Rhode Island, with a specialty in quality of life and well-being.

References

Andreoletti

Leszczynski

J. P.

(2008) Gender, race, and age: Compound stereotypes across the lifespan. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL.

Arbuckle

Williams

B. D.

(2003) Students’ perceptions of expressiveness: Age and gender effects on teacher evaluations. Sex Roles 49(9–10): 507–516. doi:10.1023/A:1025832707002.

Bakan

(1966) The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion, Oxford, England: Rand McNally.

Banaji

M. R.

Hardin

C. D.

(1996) Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science 7: 136–141. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x.

Bassili

J. N.

Reil

J. E.

(1981) On the dominance of the old-age stereotype. Journal of Gerontology 36(6): 682–688.

Block

J. H.

(1983) Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development 54(6): 1335–1354. doi:10.2307/1129799.

Brewer

M. B.

Dull

Lui

(1981) Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41: 656–670.

Broverman

I. K.

Broverman

D. M.

Clarkson

F. E.

Rosenkrantz

P. S.

Vogel

S. R.

(1970) Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34(1): 1–7. doi:10.1037/h0028797.

Cole

E. R.

(2009) Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist 64(3): 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564.

10.

Cuddy

A. C.

Fiske

S. T.

(2002) Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons. In: Nelson

T. D.

(ed.) Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 3–26.

11.

Cuddy

A. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2008) Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the bias map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40(2): 61–150. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601 (07) 00002-0\.

12.

Deaux

(1995) How basic can you be? The evolution of research on gender stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues 51(1): 11–20. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01305.x.

13.

Devine

P. G.

Elliot

A. J.

(1995) Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 11: 1139–1150. doi:10.1177/01461672952111002.

14.

Diehl

Owen

S. K.

Youngblade

L. M.

(2004) Agency and communion attributes in adults’ spontaneous self-representations. International Journal of Behavioral Development 28(1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/01650250344000226.

15.

Dovidio

J. F.

Evans

Tyler

R. B.

(1986) Racial stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22(1): 22–37. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90039-9.

16.

Eagly

A. H.

Kite

M. E.

(1987) Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(3): 451–462. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.451.

17.

Eagly

A. H.

Mladinic

(1989) Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15(4): 543–558. doi:10.1177/0146167289154008.

18.

Eagly

A. H.

Steffen

V. J.

(1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(4): 735–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735.

19.

Fabes

R. A.

Martin

C. L.

(1991) Gender and age stereotypes of emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17(5): 532–540. doi:10.1177/0146167291175008.

20.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. C.

Glick

(2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6): 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.

21.

Galinsky

A. D.

Hall

E. V.

Cuddy

A. C.

(2013) Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science 24(4): 498–506. doi:10.1177/0956797612457783.

22.

Ghavami

Peplau

L. A.

(2012) An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly 37: 113–127. doi:10.1177/0361684312464203.

23.

Guttmann

(1994) Reclaimed powers: Men and women in later life, 2nd ed. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

24.

Hale

N. M.

Hewitt

(1998) Negative aging stereotypes and the agentic-communal dichotomy. Perceptual and Motor Skills 87: 915–918. doi:10.2466/pms.1998.87.3.915.

25.

Hummert

M. L.

(1990) Multiple stereotypes of elderly and young adults: A comparison of structure and evaluations. Psychology and Aging 5(2): 182–193. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.5.2.182.

26.

Hummert

Garstka

T. A.

Shaner

J. L.

Strahm

(1994) Stereotypes of the elderly held by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Journals of Gerontology 49(5): P240–P249.

27.

Jackson

L. A.

Sullivan

L. A.

(1990) Perceptions of multiple role participants. Social Psychology Quarterly 53(3): 274–282. doi:10.2307/2786965.

28.

Johnson

K. L.

Freeman

J. B.

Pauker

(2012) Race is gendered: How covarying phenotypes and stereotypes bias sex categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(1): 116–131. doi:10.1037/a0025335.

29.

Katz

D. D.

Braly

K. K.

(1933) Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 28(3): 280–290. doi:10.1037/h0074049.

30.

Kite

M. E.

(1996) Age, gender, and occupational label: A test of social role theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly 20: 361–374.

31.

Kite

M. E.

Deaux

Miele

(1991) Stereotypes of young and old: Does age outweigh gender? Psychology and Aging 6: 19–27.

32.

Kite

M. E.

Johnson

B. T.

(1988) Attitudes toward older and younger adults: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging 3(3): 233–244. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.3.3.233.

33.

Kite

M. E.

Stockdale

G. D.

Whitley

B. E.

Jr. Johnson

B. T.

(2005) Attitudes toward younger and older adults: An updated meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Issues 61: 241–266.

34.

Knox

V. J.

Gekoski

W. L.

Kelly

L. E.

(1995) The age group evaluation and description (AGED) inventory: A new instrument for assessing stereotypes of and attitudes toward age groups. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development 40(1): 31–55. doi:10.2190/8CUC-4XK8-M33K-07YD.

35.

Kunda

Sinclair

Griffin

(1997) Equal ratings but separate meanings: Stereotypes as the construal of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 720–734.

36.

Leaper

(1987) Agency, communion, and gender as predictors of communication style and being liked in adult male-female dyads. Sex Roles 16(3–4): 137–149. doi:10.1007/BF00289645.

37.

Livingston

R. W.

Rosette

Washington

E. F.

(2012) Can an agentic black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science 23(4): 354–358. doi:10.1177/0956797611428079.

38.

Neuberg

S. L.

Sng

(2013) A life history theory of social perception: Stereotyping at the intersections of age, sex, ecology (and race). Social Cognition 31(6): 696–711. doi:10.1521/soco.2013.31.6.696.

39.

Niemann

Y. F.

Jennings

Rozelle

R. M.

Baxter

J. C.

Sullivan

(1994) Use of free responses and cluster analysis to determine stereotypes of eight groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(4): 379–390. doi:10.1177/0146167294204005.

40.

North

M. S.

Fiske

S. T.

(2013) A prescriptive intergenerational-tension ageism scale: Succession, identity, and consumption (SIC). Psychological Assessment 25(3): 706–713. doi:10.1037/a0032367.

41.

Prentice

D. A.

Carranza

(2002) What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26: 269–281.

42.

Ruble

D. N.

Martin

(1998) Gender development. In: Eisenberg

(ed.) Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development, 5th ed., Vol. 3. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 933–1016.

43.

Schmidt

D. F.

Boland

S. M.

(1986) Structure of perceptions of older adults: Evidence for multiple stereotypes. Psychology and Aging 1(3): 255–260. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.1.3.255.

44.

Spence

J. T.

(1993) Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(4): 624–635. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.624.

45.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

Stapp

(1975) Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 29–39.

46.

Stangor

Lynch

Duan

Glas

(1992) Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(2): 207–218. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207.

47.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013) Using multivariate statistics, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

48.

Turner

B. F.

Turner

C. B.

(1992) Through a glass darkly: Gender stereotypes for men and women varying in age and race. In: Hess

B. B.

Markson

E. W.

(eds) Growing old in America, 4th ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, pp. 137–150.

49.

Turner

B. F.

Turner

C. B.

(1994) Social cognition and gender stereotypes for women varying in age and race. In: Turner

B. F.

Troll

L. E.

(eds) Women growing older: Psychological perspectives, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 94–139.

50.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). An aging nation: The older population in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf.

51.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

(1997) Reading faces: Window to the soul?, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

52.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Montepare

J. M.

(1992) Impressions of babyfaced individuals across the life span. Developmental Psychology 28(6): 1143–1152. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1143.

53.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Montepare

J. M.

Lee

H. K.

(1993) They don’t all look alike: Individual impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1): 85–101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.85.