Gauging Aging: How Does the American Public Truly Perceive Older Age-And Older People?

Abstract

Eight leaders of eight national aging organizations walked into a room. One asked, Why hasn't the Older Americans Act been reauthorized? A second one wondered, Why aren't there more funders [in aging], given the country's demographics? A third questioned, Why do so many people think Social Security is an entitlement, not the earned benefit that it is?I wish this was the beginning of a joke and you were all set for a laugh. Unfortunately, that is not the case. These important questions revealed some of the frustrations that were aired when a group of leaders from national aging organizations gathered in September 2012 in New York City. During a daylong meeting, they reflected on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to older adults and the professionals who work with them.As the group's convener and longtime funding professional for the aging sector, I was not surprised that, at the end of the day, these leaders were leftpondering a central question: Does the public understand the reality of today's older adults? After much research, it turns out the answer is No. Of more concern, however, is the daunting reality that American's core beliefs about aging appear to be at the root of prevalent ageist rhetoric, actions, and attitudes.Collaborating and Commissioning ResearchCommuning around the abovementioned question, the eight organizations in the field of aging (AARP, the American Federation for Aging Research, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Society on Aging, Grantmakers in Aging, the Gerontological Society of America, the National Council on Aging, and the National Hispanic Council on Aging) created an ongoing collaborative which I, as principal of Laura A. Robbins Consulting, LLC, have the privilege of managing.With support from seven funders (AARP, Archstone Foundation and The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Fan Fox and Leslie R. Samuels Foundation, the John A. Hartford Foundation, the Retirement Research Foundation, and the Rose Community Foundation), the group, now known colloquially as Leaders of Aging Organizations, developed and commissioned research to explore what the public truly believes about older adults. The Washington, D.C.-based FrameWorks Institute-a 2015 winner of the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions-was invited to conduct the research.FrameWorks distinguishes itself by using an approach called Strategic Frame Analysis (for a definition, see sidebar below), based on theories and methods used by cognitive, linguistic, and social scientists to understand how people think about complex issues. Rather than traditional opinion research that reveals what people say, FrameWorks' research goes deeper to document the assumptions and thought processes that inform what people say and structure their judgments and opinions. The balance of this article summarizes some of the FrameWorks Institute's findings, detailed more expansively in the report, Gauging Aging: Mapping the Gaps Between Expert and Public Understandings of Aging in America, by Eric Lindland et al. (2015) (www.giaging.org/ documents/150501_gauging_aging_final_ FrameWorks_report.pdf ).The research was structured to compare what the public believes about older adults with what aging experts say. To understand public perceptions, the researchers conducted twenty in-depth interviews in the cities of Charleston; San Jose, California; Minneapolis; and, Frederick, Maryland. This was followed by an additional set of thirty ten-minute interviews conducted on the street in Milwaukee, Boston, Baltimore, and Jacksonville. The eleven experts' views were gathered via one-hour phone interviews.The results, while not surprising, nevertheless were startling. The public's perceptions, at first blush, were upbeat. Interviewees spoke of older people as having accumulated wisdom, staying active, being self-sufficient, and having earned their leisure time in later life. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.