Based on the original survey “Relating to Older People Evaluation” (ROPE) by Cherry and Palmore (2008), we have elaborated the instrument Evaluation for Older Adults that consists of 20 items. In this project, we intend on studying the positive and negative behaviors which people have been able to inter- nalize during their daily life, as well as a previous psychometric analysis about the validity of the instru- ment. The sample is formed by, on one side, students of Psycho pedagogy, and the other side, older stu- dents that belong to the Class of Experience of the University of Seville. The results obtained suggest that the majority of the people take into consideration the positive behaviors, and both the young and the older adults reinforce the behaviors of and toward the older adults. It is important to highlight the significant differences as far as gender in relation to the internalization of positive behaviors, being more frequent in women than in men. In the discussion, we analyze the implications about social perception towards older people as a social phenomenon, as well as the strategies to reduce the negative behaviors towards older people in daily life.
Cite this paper
García, A. & Troyano, Y. (2013). Different Ways of Perceiving the Aging Process: Social Behaviors of Women and Men in Relation to Age Discrimination. Psychology, 4, 279-282. doi: 10.4236/psych.2013.43A041.
 Allen, P. D., Cherry, K. E., & Palmore, E. (2009). Self-reported ageism in social work practitioners and students. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52, 208-218. doi:10.1080/01634370802561927
 Butler, R. N. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. Gerontologist, 9, 243-246. doi:10.1093/geront/9.4_Part_1.243
 Cherry, K. E., & Palmore , E. B. (2008). Relating to older people evaluation (ROPE): A measure of self-reported ageism. Educational Gerontology, 34, 849-861. doi:10.1080/03601270802042099
 Cohen, E. S. (2001). The complex nature of ageism: What is it? Who does it? Who perceives it? The Gerontologist, 41, 576-577.
 García, A. J. (2011). Variables psicosociales que inciden en la calidad de vida de los participantes en programas universitarios de mayores. Ph.D. Thesis, Seville: Seville University.
 Jackson, E. M., Cherry, K. E., Smitherman, E. A., & Hawley, K. S. (2008). Knowledge of memory aging and Alzheimer’s disease in college students and mental health professionals. Aging and Mental Healthm, 12, 258-266. doi:10.1080/13607860801951861
 Kalavar, J. (2001). Examining ageism: Do male and female college students differ? Educational Gerontology, 27, 507-513.
 Kelchner, E. S. (1999). Ageism’s impact and effect on society: Not just a concern for the old. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 32, 85-100. doi:10.1300/J083v32n04_07
 Kogan, N. (1961). Attitudes toward old people: The development of a scale and an examination of correlates. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 44-54. doi:10.1037/h0048053
 Levy, B. R. (2001). Eradication of ageism requires addressing the enemy within. The Gerontologist, 41, 578-579.
 Palmore, E. B. (1999). Ageism: Negative and positive. New York: Springer.
 Palmore, E. B. (2001). The ageism survey: First findings. The Gerontologist, 41, 572-575. doi:10.1093/geront/41.5.572
 Palmore, E. (2004). Ageism in Canada and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 19, 41-46.
 Palmore, E., Branch, L., & Harris, D. (2006). The encyclopedia of ageism. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
 Rosencranz, H. A., & McNevin, T. E. (1969). A factor analysis of attitudes toward the aged. The Gerontologist, 9, 55-59.
 Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J., & Cred, M. (2005). The multidimensional nature of ageism: Construct validity and group differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 335-362.
 Stahl, S., & Metzger, A. (2012). College students’ ageist behavior: The role of aging knowledge and perceived vulnerability to disease. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 2, 175-180.
 Stuart-Hamilton, I., & Mahoney, B. (2003). Examining ageism: Do male and female college students differ? Educational Gerontology, 29, 251-260. doi:10.1080/713844305