JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
COMMUNICATION EVALUATIONS
ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
From Adolescent Storm and
Stress to Elder Aches and Pains
ANGIE WILLIAMS
PETER GARRETT
Cardiff University–Wales
In this study, 490 community adults aged 20 to 59 evaluated their experiences with non–
family members aged 13 to 16 years, 65 to 85 years, and their own age, in terms of their perceptions of both the others’ and their own communicative behavior. As well as validating
previous research that suggested that nonaccommodation, accommodation, and respect/
obligation are important evaluative dimensions for communication between younger and
older people, these results revealed two relatively new evaluative dimensions—
noncommunication and self-promotion—which seem particularly relevant for perceptions of communication with 13- to 16-year-olds. Overall, although elders are perceived as
more nonaccommodative, 13- to 16-year-olds were viewed as more noncommunicative,
less accommodative, and more self-promotional. Findings also suggest changes in evaluations across the lifespan. For example, the older respondents tended to view elders more
favorably. Results are discussed in the context of a plea for more research taking a developmental lifespan perspective on intergenerational communication.
For quite some time, there has been a growing research interest in
communication and aging (see Nussbaum & Coupland, 1995) and
intergenerational communication (Williams & Nussbaum, 2001).
Among other things, this interest is given impetus by demographic
changes—the aging population of many nations around the globe is
increasing, as is the life span itself. Many of us will live to become members of the increasing elderly portion of the population. In his presidential address to the International Communication Association, Giles
(1999) urged language and communication scholars to “consider what
our work says to lifespan processes” and to “give the silent revolution
[the age of longevity] a voice” (pp. 178-179). The study reported here
focuses on communication between people of different ages—
AUTHORS’ NOTE: A previous version of this article was awarded Top Paper in the Instructional Developmental Division of the International Communication Association
where it was presented at the annual convention held in Washington, D.C., May 2001. The
authors would like to thank Mary Lee Hummert, Jon Nussbaum, Howard Giles, and two
anonymous reviewers for their comments regarding earlier versions of this article.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Vol. 21 No. 2, June 2002 101-126
 2002 Sage Publications
101
102
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
intergenerational communication. Thus far, research into nonfamily
intergenerational communication has primarily focused on that
between college-aged people and much older people (aged 65 and
older). This study aims to extend this research in at least two ways.
First, we are interested in adults’ perceptions of their communication
with adolescents and elders in an age-group-comparative context (i.e.,
younger people versus older people versus peers). Second, we have
examined respondent age cohort differences in perceptions of
intergenerational communication with younger people, older people,
and peers.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
Our theoretical perspective is derived from social identity and intergroup communication theory (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991;
Harwood, Giles, & Ryan, 1995). In very simple terms, we categorize
ourselves and others as members of social groups and categories. Once
we have categorized someone as a member of a social group, we tend to
attribute group stereotypes to them and downplay their individual
characteristics. We also seek self- and ingroup esteem by social comparison processes that ensure that we come out more favorably
(Turner & Giles, 1981). Age functions as one such social group. In many
intergenerational interactions, age is salient (Williams & Nussbaum,
2001) and triggered by rather obvious visual and vocal cues (e.g., graying hair, voice quality, and so on).
One of the most revealing theoretical approaches underpinning
much intergenerational communication research, and indeed
employed in the study we report here, is communication accommodation theory (Giles et al., 1991). This theory maintains that individuals
make adjustments to their verbal and nonverbal communication styles
in response to their perceptions of the group membership and communication characteristics of the other. Hence, for example, in the case of
patronizing speech to elders, we might speak more slowly than normal,
try to avoid complex vocabulary, speak louder, and make various other
adjustments to perceived communication characteristics of the elder
individual. However, it is not always the characteristics of the individual that are salient; it may instead be those of the social group to which
we perceive them to belong. And characteristics of group and social
identities can often guide communication behavior much more than
individual characteristics and identities (Tajfel, 1978). This can lead to
communication being geared to the stereotypes associated with a
group rather than individual qualities of particular interlocutors
(Coupland, Coupland, Giles, & Henwood, 1988).
Another important aspect of communication accommodation theory
is that individuals strive to achieve a positive identity and, in encounters they perceive as intergroup, they may seek positive differentiation
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
103
by maintaining a style of communication distinctive for their group.
Thus, “divergence,” “underaccommodation,” or even “maintenance”
indicate social distance from the interlocutor. Because age can be a
salient group identity in communicative situations, communication
based on stereotypes and on accommodative processes is important to
consider in the field of intergenerational communication (Harwood
et al., 1995).
Although positive stereotypes of older people have been identified
recently (e.g., Hummert, 1990, 1994), older people are consistently and
typically negatively stereotyped as abrasive, frail, vulnerable, incompetent (Williams & Giles, 1991), and overly self-disclosive (Coupland,
Coupland, & Giles, 1991). These more negative stereotypes and the
communication behavior associated with them have, naturally, been
among the primary concerns of recent studies of communication and
aging (for a review, see Williams & Nussbaum, 2001). Perceptions and
expectations about older people’s language abilities align with stereotypes of elders as communicatively challenged in various ways (Ryan &
Kwong See, 1993; Ryan, Kwong See, Maneer, & Trovato, 1992). Communication is adjusted in response to invoked stereotypes of elders
(Harwood & Williams, 1998; Hummert, Garstka, & Shaner, 1995;
Hummert, Garstka, Shaner, & Strahm, 1994), such that elders are
often overaccommodated by the young. For example, perceptions of
elders as weak, cognitively deficient, and feeble may result in patronizing speech (i.e., with simpler grammar, more controlling features, less
listening, overfamiliar address terms, and child-oriented phrases) by
younger interlocutors (Ryan, Hummert, & Boich, 1995). Thus,
intergenerational communication can, in many social contexts, be synonymous with intergroup communication.
PERCEPTIONS OF INTERGENERATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
Investigating perceptions of intergenerational communication from
an intergroup communication perspective, Williams and Giles (1996)
asked college-aged students to recall and recount recent satisfying and
dissatisfying conversations with nonfamily elders. In open-ended written accounts, they were asked to describe two conversations: one satisfying and the other dissatisfying. The resultant data were coded and
content analyzed to find the most frequent underlying themes in these
accounts. Results showed that satisfying conversations were those
where older people were reportedly accommodative to the needs of the
young person. In doing so, they were supportive, listening, and attentive to the younger person, giving compliments and telling interesting
stories. Satisfying conversations were also those where a mutual
understanding was achieved and both the old and the young person
104
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
expressed positive emotions. Interestingly, age differences in these
conversations were frequently discounted by the young—either satisfying older people violated ageist expectations or age was completely
discounted and thought to have no bearing on the conversation.
Reports of dissatisfying conversations included frequent characterizations of older people as being underaccommodative (i.e., inattentive,
nonlistening, close minded, out of touch, and forcing unwanted attention on young interlocutors). Elders in these conversations reportedly
complained in an angry accusing fashion about their ill health and
problematic life circumstances (see also Coupland et al., 1988). Moreover, a number of young participants felt that older people negatively
stereotyped the young as irresponsible and/or naïve. In doing so, older
people were thought to be patronizing to youth. On the other hand,
young people tended to describe themselves as “reluctantly accommodating” to older dissatisfying partners—they had to restrain themselves by “biting their tongues” and felt under obligation to show
respect for age.
Sociologists have commented that modern postindustrial societies
are increasingly age segregated (Chudacoff, 1989). Indeed, contact
between people of vastly different ages may be in decline as we segregate people into university accommodations, retirement communities,
and childfree apartments, and families are increasingly likely to be
geographically dispersed. In our studies, college students report
spending as little as 5% to 10% of their time communicating with people older than 65. Some studies indicate that frequency of contact with
older people who are not family influences perceptions and attitudes
toward older people and aging (for a review, see Fox & Giles, 1993). In
previous research, we have found that self-estimated frequency of contact with elders is related to perceptions of intergenerational communication. Young student participants who report more frequent contact
with elders tend to disagree that elders are nonaccommodative and are
more likely to agree that elders are accommodative. They also are more
likely to indicate respect for elders but less likely to feel obligated and
less likely to endorse the idea that large age differences matter in
intergenerational interaction (Giles et al., 2001; Williams, Ota, et al.,
1997).Recently, research on intergenerational communication perceptions has been extended around the Pacific Rim (e.g., Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, Japan, the United States, New Zealand,
Canada, and the Philippines) by developing a questionnaire from the
themes identified in the Williams and Giles study described above
(e.g., Williams, Ota et al., 1997; Noels, Giles, Cai, & Turay, 1999). This
ongoing cross-national research program was designed to test assumptions that older people in Eastern societies are much more venerated
and respected than those in the West. For the purposes of the research
reported here, we can summarize the results of these studies as follows. In Western (non-European) contexts, nonfamily elders are
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
105
perceived as more nonaccommodative (i.e., close minded, out of touch,
complaining) and less accommodative (i.e., supportive, attentive, etc.)
than same-aged peers (although see McCann, Giles, Ota, & Caraker
[2001] for a recent U.S. anomaly to the latter pattern). Younger people
feel more respect and obligation to nonfamily elders than to peers and
a stronger desire to avoid or end conversations with nonfamily elders
than they do with peers (for a review, see Giles, McCann, Ota, & Noels,
2002).
It should be noted that the younger people in these studies have
been, for the most part, young college students. Community adults of
different ages may well view these interactions differently according to
their life stage or cohort group. Indeed, in the interests of facilitating a
life-span approach to language and communication generally and
intergenerational communication specifically, it is going to be important to investigate the perceptions of respondents other than collegeage students. The nature and functions of intergenerational communication both within and outside the family would be expected to change
dramatically across the life span as peer reference groups, social networks, roles, and responsibilities change and develop. In very simple
terms, whereas younger people may negatively stereotype older people
(outgroup) and favor their peers (ingroup), we would expect this pattern to reverse as people get older and, thus, closer and closer to the
outgroup. Increasing age might trigger a shift to favor older people (as
they become the ingroup) and negatively stereotype young people (see
also Noels, Giles, Gallois, & Ng, 2001). Although language and communication scholars have not systematically researched stereotypes of
youth and intergenerational communication with teenagers, there is
research evidence that adults do indeed stereotype the young.
STEREOTYPES AND AGEISM TOWARD YOUTH
Several studies provide evidence for the claim that age stereotyping,
perceptions, and expectations about age-associated communication
behavior is not a one-way street with elders as the sole recipients of stereotypical reactions and age-adjusted talk (Williams & Giles, 1998). A
study by Ng, Moody, and Giles (1991) asked respondents to formulate
questions to put to targets of varying ages (i.e., aged 16 to 91) who had
ostensibly had a car accident, the cause of which was ambiguous (see
also Franklyn-Stokes, Harriman, Giles, & Coupland, 1988). Respondents rated questions about health, physical condition, and mental
alertness as most appropriate for the older protagonists whereas for
younger protagonists, questions about alcohol consumption and speeding were among those deemed most appropriate. Although the focus of
this study was originally on stereotypes and expectations about older
people, it is hard to ignore the way it reflects expectations about the
106
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
young as reckless, irresponsible, more likely to abuse alcohol, and so
forth (Williams & Giles, 1998).
Surveys conducted in the United States also point to widespread
stereotypical perceptions about adolescence as a time of storm and
stress (Arnett, 1999). An initial study conducted with parents and
teachers of adolescents revealed that the majority judged adolescence
to be a difficult time of life for teenagers, their parents, and teachers
(Buchanan et al., 1990). A further study (Buchanan & Holmbeck, 1998)
revealed that both college students and parents of adolescents thought
that compared to elementary school children, adolescents were more
likely to have problems (i.e., emotional ones such as anxiety, insecurity,
and depression, and sociobehavioral problems such as risk taking,
rebelliousness, recklessness, and impulsivity). Although behavior that
may be characterized in terms of the popular notion of storm and stress
may not be universal to all teenagers in all circumstances (Arnett,
1999), clearly many adults believe that it is.
Young people are aware of and sensitive to the way others perceive
them, and they readily report experiences of negative stereotyping by
older adults (Williams & Giles, 1996). Young people’s reports of stereotypical communication directed toward them include assumptions
that they are, indeed, feckless, irresponsible, and reckless. In this
regard, Giles and Williams (1994) showed that although stereotypebased patronizing communication from younger people to elders
received a lot of research time and attention (Ryan et al., 1995), younger college-aged students reported that older people patronized them
too, and it bothered them. The most bothersome form of elder
patronization toward the young was identified as “disapproving
speech,” often reportedly framed along intergroup lines, such as “you
young people are all party animals.” Other forms of bothersome
patronization were “over-parenting” (nurturing overaccommodation)
and “non-listening.” Furthermore, Williams, Coupland, Folwell, and
Sparks’s (1997) focus group study of young people’s reactions to media
representations of Generation X shows that young people believe that
middle-aged people in control of the media negatively stereotype them
as feckless and irresponsible.
Most of the research we have discussed in this section relates to perceptions of young people in late adolescence (18 to 20 years old). But
early adolescence is perhaps even more stigmatized in ways (Griffin,
1993) that make intergenerational communication particularly problematic for young teenagers. For example, in their U.K. study of about
4,000 12- to 20-year-olds, Drury, Catan, Dennison, and Brody (1998)
found that adolescents (13 to 19 years) reported more bad than good
communication experiences with nonfamily adults. Developmental
trends were suggested by the finding that 12- to 15-year-olds reported
significantly less good and more bad communication than 16- to 20year-olds and that this was also found in communication with friends
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
107
(Catan, Dennison, & Coleman, 1996). Indeed, taking into account the
body of research into “progressive identity formation” (Waterman,
1982); the role of peer groups, peer pressure, and conformity in early
adolescence (Bixenstine, DeCorte, & Bixenstine, 1976; Newman &
Newman, 1988); and the place of language and communication in such
processes (e.g., Baker, 1992; Bradford Brown, Mory, & Kinney, 1994;
Rampton, 1995; Garrett, Coupland, & Williams, forthcoming), there
are, arguably, some grounds for seeing young teenagers as a distinct
communicative group (see also Arnett, 2000).Young people’s problems
may be exacerbated by stereotyping and even prejudice by community
agents who deal with teenagers as members of the general public (e.g.,
teachers, social workers, doctors, career advisers, the police, and so
forth). The findings of Catan et al. (1996) and Drury et al. (1998) indicate that young people experience most communication difficulty in
formal, adult-defined contexts, often where professional or official
roles are involved. Social welfare workers and police officers interviewed by Drury and colleagues expressed politically correct views on
one hand yet readily talked about teenagers’ lack of communication
skills, motivation, and unwillingness to communicate. In these cases,
as in others, it seems that there are fairly strong links between teenageradult communication problems and power differentials—both perceived and real (Drury & Dennison, 1999, 2000).
Previous research has shown that rather negative perceptions of
older adults’ nonaccommodation might be attenuated in some ways by
positive stereotypes that lead to evaluations that older people can also
be accommodative (e.g., Noels et al., 1999, 2001). However, we suspected that this might not be the case with perceptions of adolescents
where stereotypes of storm and stress seem dominant. This suggests
that adolescents might be perceived even more negatively by adults in
terms of age category characteristics than older people are.
THE PRESENT STUDY
This study seeks to extend previous research on perceptions of
intergenerational communication in two ways. First, we are interested
in extending current research on intergenerational communication
across the life span, moving from perceptions of college-aged students
to community adults at different life stages (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and
50-59 years old). To achieve this, we recruited community adult
respondents aged from 20 to 59 years in a cross-sectional design. Second, all previous research within this genre has examined perceptions
of elders, but this study introduces a new but also potentially stigmatized target age group (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2000) by including
young teenagers (aged 13-16 years) in the comparative frame. The
research was modeled on recently conducted surveys of inter-
108
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
generational communication around the Pacific Rim (e.g., Williams
et al., 1997; Noels et al., 1999, 2001) and is the first to be conducted in
the British context. Community adults were divided into the four age
groups indicated above. Their perceptions of conversations with three
target groups—elders (aged 65-85 years), young teenagers (aged 13-16
years), and peers (“people the same age as you”)—were elicited in a
questionnaire study. Following previous research (e.g., Noels et al.,
1999), peers were included as a control group.
Previous research has indicated that perceived frequency of contact
with elders may mediate perceptions of intergenerational communication (Williams et al., 1997; Giles et al., 2001). We formulated the following research questions to evaluate this and to encompass changes in
the perceived frequency of various forms of intergenerational communication across the life span.
Research Question 1: What is the pattern of reported frequency of contact
with the target groups, and does it change across the life span?
Research Question 2: Is reported frequency of contact related to perceptions
of communication with the different target groups?
The following hypotheses are built on the previous research discussed
above to investigate communication perceptions of peers, elders, and
young teenagers. A very general hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) was that
the age categories would be judged differently. But more important, we
hypothesized (Hypothesis 2) that judgments about older targets and
younger targets would reveal stereotypes about how they communicate as well as underlying beliefs about how they are communicated
with. Moreover, we predicted (Hypothesis 3) that these trends would
show different patterns for different cohorts from ages 20 to 59 years.
For example, perceptions of others of different ages may change across
the life span, such that as people get older, they may become more positively disposed to older people and less likely to stereotype them. On
the other hand, because younger people are closer in age to the young
target group, they may identify with them more closely and thus judge
them more positively.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 495 community adults living and working in
southwest England and south Wales. These people were not formally
randomly selected but were a convenience sample of adults available
and willing to take part in the survey. Although random selection procedures cannot be ensured, we have no reason to suspect a selection
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
109
Table 1
Descriptive Data for Respondent Age Groups
Age range
Subsample size
Mean age
Standard deviation
Women (n)
Women (%)
20-29
88
25.97
2.11
45
51.1
30-39
112
34.10
2.89
59
52.7
40-49
180
45.00
2.73
107
59.4
50-59
110
52.98
2.70
51
46.4
bias in the data, apart from the fact that most participants lived and
worked in southwest England and south Wales. Prior to the main analysis, respondents younger than 20 and older than 59 were excluded
from the study (final N = 490). This was done to ensure that the respondent group was adult and did not include individuals who could be classified as belonging to either of the comparison groups. The average age
of the overall sample was 41 years (SD = 10.06), 54% (n = 264) of whom
were women. Table 1 provides for a further breakdown into the four
age groups. Following the convention in developmental psychology
that 10 years defines an age cohort (Williams, Coupland, et al., 1997),
the adults were divided into four cohorts. It should be noted that in this
study, the label peers refers to a target group of people the same age as
the respondents, for each of the four cohorts ranging from 20 to 59
years of age.
Respondents’ occupations were coded according to the U.K. director
general’s classification system for social economic status (see Rose,
1995): professional = 21.22%, managerial/technical = 7.76%, skilled
nonmanual = 7.76%, skilled manual = 16.33%, partly skilled = 8.37%,
unskilled = 17.35%, and unwaged = 11.63%. In fact, respondents came
from many walks of life (e.g., managers, company directors, car
mechanics, computer operators, office cleaners, security guards, housewives, airline pilots, and so on).
Materials and Procedure
With the help of student volunteer researchers taking a communication research methods course, a questionnaire was distributed to 495
community adults. Respondents were recruited through the students’
social contacts (e.g., relatives and friends). The questionnaire was
based on the Perceptions of Intergenerational Communication questionnaire previously devised and used by Williams and colleagues (e.g.,
Williams, Ota et al., 1997; Harwood & Williams, 1998). The original
version of the questionnaire was devised for use with elders and peers.
To increase validity for evaluations of conversations with adolescents,
perceptions of communication with people aged 13 to 16 years were
investigated via open-ended questionnaires and focus groups in a pilot
110
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
Table 2
Items, Factors, and Reliabilities for Perceptions of Other’s Communication Behavior
a
Accommodation
Complimented me
Gave welcome advice
Told interesting stories
Were supportive
Were attentive
Initiated conversation
Sought information
Were humorous
c
Self-promotion
Were overconfident
Tried to impress
Acted superior
Talked about own life
Emphasized the age gap
Were cheeky
Gossiped
Nonaccommodation
Made angry complaints
Negatively stereotyped my age group
Complained about life
Complained about health
Forced attention on me
Talked down to me
Treated me like a child
Were close minded
Noncommunication
Dried-up in conversation
Gave short answers
Were uncommunicative
Were talkative (-ve)
b
d
Note. (-ve) = Item negatively related to factor.
a. Cronbach’s alpha: 13 to 16 years = .72; peers = .77; 65 to 85 years = .84.
b. Cronbach’s alpha: 13 to 16 years = .77; peers = .75; 65 to 85 years = .71.
c. Cronbach’s alpha: 16 to 18 years = .73; peers = .72; 65 to 85 years = .70.
d. Cronbach’s alpha: 16 to 18 years = .75; peers = .64; 65 to 85 years = .66.
study. These were then content analyzed for frequent themes that were
subsequently formulated into questionnaire items and added to the
questionnaire.
The questionnaire requires respondents to report their perceptions
of their communication with others who are not family, categorized
into the following age bands: “elders” (65-85 years), “people your own
age,” and “young teenagers” (13-16 years). For each of the three targets,
respondents were asked to describe their perceptions of the other’s
behavior. Separate sections for each target group began, “During conversations with (members of the target group), I found, in general,
they . . . .” The statements were completed with the phrases indicated
in Table 2. Respondents also assessed their perceptions of their own
communicative behavior while interacting with the three targets.
Each item began, “During conversations with (members of the target
group), in general, I . . . .” (See Table 3 for individual items.) Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each
statement on a 7-point, Likert-type scale, anchored at one end with 1 =
agree completely and at the other end with 7 = disagree completely.
Before completing the main questionnaire items, respondents were
asked, “What age group (in years) would you associate with: (a) adolescence, (b) young adulthood, (c) middle age, (d) old age?” Among other
things (Williams & Garrett, forthcoming), this provided a manipulation
check that confirmed the age-category boundaries used on the
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
111
Table 3
Items, Factors, and Reliabilities for Perceptions of Own Communication Behavior
a
Communication adjustments
Spoke slower
Spoke louder
Simplified vocabulary
Avoided certain words (e.g., slang)
c
Respect/obligation
Felt obliged to be polite
Had to bite tongue
Avoided certain topics
b
Discomfort
Did not act like self
Did not know what to say
Tried to end the conversation
Talked down
d
Topic accommodation
Found common topics
Talked about topics they enjoy
a. Cronbach’s alpha: 13 to 16 years = .76; peers = .80; 65 to 85 years = .80.
b. Cronbach’s alpha: 13 to 16 years = .70; peers = .69; 65 to 85 years = .72.
c. Cronbach’s alpha: 13 to 16 years = .61; peers = .75; 65 to 85 years = .74.
d. Cronbach’s alpha: 13 to 16 years = .67; peers = .62; 65 to 85 years = .66.
questionnaire. The results for this question are not detailed here, but
generally, respondents agreed that adolescence occurs between the
ages of 13 and 16, and old age begins at 65.
Respondents were also asked to report on a 7-point scale how frequently they interacted with the three target age groups (1 = not at all
frequently and 7 = very frequently). In addition, respondents recorded
their own age, sex, ethnicity, occupation, and area where they lived.
Prior to the main analysis, a series of preliminary regression analyses
indicated that frequency of interaction,1 occupation, and sex of
respondent2 were not important predictors of perceptions of self ’s and
others’ communication with the three target age groups. However,
analyses did indicate that the age group of the respondent was related
to perceptions of the target others, and subsequent analyses were conducted using respondent’s age and target’s age as independent
variables.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Frequency of Interaction With Targets
To investigate Research Question 1, whether respondents from the
different age groups reported varying frequencies of contact with the
three target groups, a 4 (respondent age group) × 3 (target: young teenager vs. same-age peer vs. elder) ANOVA with target as a within-subjects
variable was calculated. The dependent variable for this analysis
was reported frequency of contact with the targets and the independent variables were target and respondent age group. The ANOVA indicated main effects for target, F(2, 860) = 263.24, p < .001, η2 = .38, main
effects for respondent age group, F(1, 430) = 4.37, p < .005, η2 = .03, and
112
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
a significant interaction between target and respondent age group,
F(6, 860) = 5.13, p < .001, η2 = .04.
Post hoc tests indicated that compared with all the younger respondent age groups, the 50- to 59-year-olds reported more frequent contact
with the target groups considered together. All respondent age groups
reported the highest frequent contact with peers compared to other
targets, but they reported comparatively similar frequency of contact
with elder and younger targets. More important, post hoc cell mean
tests indicate no significant differences between reported frequency of
contact with elder versus younger targets for respondents aged 20 to
29, 30 to 39, and 40 to 49 years. But the oldest group of respondents
reported more frequent contact with elder compared to younger targets. Of all the age groups, the oldest group of respondents reported the
least frequent contact with peers. There are linear effects here as illustrated in Figure 1 such that reported frequency of interaction with
younger and elder targets increases with age group of respondent
whereas reported levels of contact with peers decreases with age group
of respondent.
Perceptions of Communication Behaviors: Summarizing Data
To reduce and summarize the scales relating to perceptions of communication with different age categories, exploratory factor analysis
using SPSS for Windows was conducted. To explore alternative factor
structures that might be applicable to all target groups under study,
exploratory analyses were conducted using principal components with
varimax rotation for each target group in turn. Factor analyses were,
therefore, conducted in several stages and compared to find the best
overall solution in terms of relationship to previous research and theory, coherence of factor structure, reliability of items loading on a factor, and applicability across the three target groups. This closely mirrors procedures used in previous research (e.g., Williams, Ota, et al.,
1997; Giles et al., 2001).
In line with previous research, separate factor analyses were conducted for perceptions of others’ communication behavior and selfperceptions of communication behavior. Following factor analyses,
reliabilities for each of the factors by each age group were calculated
using Cronbach’s alpha. Factor analyses were followed with MANOVA
to test for differences in evaluations of the three target age groups with
the factors as dependent variables. To investigate significant effects
further for all analyses, Dunn’s post hoc multiple comparisons for
repeated measures designs were conducted and, for interactions, cell
mean tests were conducted. These post hoc tests were recommended by
Toothaker (1991) as the best way of controlling alpha in research
designs such as this.
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
Very
113
7
6.43
6.42
6.29
6.1
6
4.99
5
4.62
4.4
4.24
4
Elder target
4.35
4.21
Same age target
3.82
3.79
Teenage target
3
2
Not at all
1
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Respondent cohort
Figure 1.
Interaction Between Target Age and Cohort for Frequency of Contact.
Factor analysis was employed as described above to summarize perceptions of communication. The best solution for perceptions of others’
behavior comprised four factors, and is illustrated in Table 2. Factors 1
and 2 closely mirror those identified in previous intergenerational
research, and are labeled nonaccommodation and accommodation,
respectively. Factors 3 and 4 are new factors labeled noncommunication (because it suggests a stalling of interaction) and self-promotion
(because it reflects an egocentric, eager to impress, orientation), respectively. As can be seen from Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were
acceptable for all factors and target groups. The lowest reliabilities in
the order of .6 were judged as adequate for this exploratory data.
A four-factor solution was judged sufficient to summarize perceptions of self-communication behavior (see Table 3). Factor 1 comprises
items that are thought to characterize “patronizing speech” (Ryan
et al., 1995), but because the label patronization may be evaluatively
loaded, this was labeled communication adjustments. Factor 2 seemed
to capture feelings of inauthenticity and awkwardness and was labeled
discomfort. (Interestingly enough, “talked down” is included here,
rather than in Factor 1.) Factor 3 closely mirrors that found in previous
intergenerational research and was labeled respect/obligation accordingly. Finally, Factor 4, labeled topic accommodation, seemed to capture an important component of communication accommodation theory (i.e., discourse management). Thus, although it comprised only two
items and achieved the lowest reliabilities, we retained it for theoretical reasons. Future research should seek to confirm the validity of this
factor as well as increase the attendant reliabilities perhaps by including more items to define it more completely (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996).
Research Question 2 asked whether there would be any relationships between reported frequency of interaction with the targets and
the communication dimensions. This was assessed by calculating
114
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
Spearman’s correlations between the reported frequency of interaction
with each of the targets and the communication dimensions for each of
the age groups. There were very few significant correlations (e.g., for
respondents aged 20-29, there was a positive correlation between frequency of contact and evaluations of elders as accommodative and a
negative correlation between frequency of contact with teenagers and
discomfort for respondents aged 50-59 years). Most important, there
were no patterns throughout the data, which suggests that the few correlations we did find were likely to be due to Type I error rather than an
evaluative pattern.
Perceptions of Communication Behaviors: Testing Hypotheses
Next, to examine different perceptions of the other person’s behavior for each of the target age groups, a 3 (target age) × 4 (respondent
age) MANOVA analysis was conducted. Perceptions of the three target
age groups (13-16 years, 65-85 years, same-age peer) was a withinsubjects factor, and age group of respondent was a between-subjects
factor, with perceptions of others’ behavior as dependent measures.
Results revealed significant multivariate main effects for target age,
Wilks’s Lambda(4, 397) = .249, p < .001, η2 = .75, and significant main
effects for respondent age, Wilks’s Lambda(12, 1061) = .892, p < .001,
η2 = .04. There was also a significant interaction for respondent age by
target age, Wilks’s Lambda(24, 1152) = .859, p < .001, η2 = .05.
A second MANOVA analysis was conducted with perceptions of selfbehavior for the three target age groups (13-16 years, 65-85 years,
same-age peer) as a within-subjects factor, and age of respondent as a
between-subjects factor, with perceptions of communication behaviors
of self as dependent measures. For significant effects, post hoc comparisons were conducted as described above. This MANOVA revealed
multivariate main effects for respondent age group, Wilks’s
Lambda(12, 1180) = .921, p < .0001, η2 = .03, and target age, Wilks’s
Lambda(8, 1790) = .38, p < .001, η2 = .39. There was also an interaction
for target age by respondent age group, Wilks’s Lambda(24, 3123) = .95,
p < .001, η2 = .01.
Evaluations of Target Age Groups: Hypotheses 1 and 2
Relevant to Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, univariate tests
revealed a significant main effect for target age on all dependent measures as follows: nonaccommodation, F(2, 808) = 95.04, p < .001, η2 = .19;
accommodation, F(2, 808) = 311.25, p < .001, η2 = .44; noncommunication, F(2, 808) = 251.63, p < .001, η2 = .38; and self-promotion,
F(2, 808), p < .001, η2 = .15.
For nonaccommodation, post hoc tests revealed that the elder target
group was perceived to be more nonaccommodative than teenager or
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
115
peer targets, but there was no difference between peers and younger
targets. On the other hand, teenage targets were perceived to be less
accommodative than either peers or elder targets. There were no differences between peers and the elder targets. Of the three target
groups, teenage targets were perceived to be the most and elder targets
were perceived to be the least noncommunicative. A similar pattern
was revealed for self-promotion, with elder targets perceived to be the
least and teenage targets the most likely to engage in this behavior.
Univariate main effects for target age were significant for communication adjustments, F(2, 898) = 558.02, p < .001, η2 = .55; discomfort,
F(2, 898) = 75.22, p < .001, η2 = .14; respect/obligation, F(2, 898) =
160.96, p < .001, η2 = .26; and topic accommodation, F(2, 898) = 18.78,
p < .001, η2 = .04.
Post hoc tests revealed that respondents were most likely to adjust
their communication to elder targets, less likely to adjust to teenage
targets, and least likely to adjust to same-age peer targets. Respondents were more likely to feel discomfort when communicating with
elder targets and teenage targets than they were when judging their
communication with same-age peer targets. There were no differences
between perceptions of discomfort when communicating with elder
and teenage targets. Respondents were most likely to feel respect/
obligation when communicating with elder targets, followed by teenage targets, and they were least likely to report this when judging communication with peer targets. Finally, respondents were more likely to
report accommodating the topic to elder targets and teenage targets
than they were to peer targets.
Cohort and Interaction Effects: Hypothesis 3
In support of Hypothesis 3, significant univariate interactions were
revealed for nonaccommodation, F(6, 808) = 2.68, p < 0.014, η2 = .02;
accommodation, F(6, 808) = 2.053, p < .056, η 2 = .02; and
noncommunication, F(6, 808) = 2.27, p < .035, η2 = .02, but not for selfpromotion. Post hoc tests revealed that respondents aged 30 years and
older judged elder targets as more accommodative than did the 20- to
29-year-olds. In fact, although the effects are small, 20- to 29-year-old
respondents evaluated elder targets as less accommodative than they
judged same-age peers, whereas older respondents judged elder targets as equally or more accommodative than their same-age peers. In
addition, respondents aged 30 to 39 years judged teenage targets to be
more accommodative than did the three other respondent age groups
(see Figure 2).
Post hoc tests revealed that although elder targets were generally
perceived to be more nonaccommodative than peers or younger targets, this effect decreased with increasing cohort age. Thus, elders were
judged as most nonaccommodative by the youngest group of respondents,
116
Agree
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
7
6
5
4.57
4.72
4.63
4.62
4.55
4
4.67
4.65
4.48
3.69
3.58
3.56
3.42
Elder target
3
Same Age target
Teenage target
2
Disagree
1
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Respondent cohort
Figure 2.
Interaction Between Target Age and Cohort for Accommodation.
less so by 30- to 39-year-olds, and even less so by the two oldest groups of
respondents. In addition, respondents aged 30 to 39 judged younger
targets as more nonaccommodative than did the three other respondent age groups (see Figure 3).
Finally, post hoc tests revealed a linear pattern for judgments of
peers, with the two youngest groups of respondents judging peers as
more noncommunicative than did the two oldest groups of respondents. Respondents aged 50 to 59 years judged elder targets as more
noncommunicative than did any of the other respondent groups. When
it came to younger targets, it was those aged 30 to 39 years who were
distinguished because they judged teenage targets as more
noncommunicative than did any of the other groups of respondents
(see Figure 4).
For perceptions of self-behavior, univariate tests revealed that main
effects for respondent age group were only significant for discomfort,
F(3, 449) = 5.86, p < .001, η2 = .04. Post hoc tests reveal a linear trend,
with discomfort declining with increasing respondent age. The means
for each of the four groups, from youngest to oldest, respectively, were
3.15, 2.95, 2.83, and 2.66. Interactions were significant for communication adjustments, F(6, 898) = 2.27, p < .35, η 2 = .02, and respect/
obligation, F(6, 898) = 4.53, p < .001, η2 = .03.
The pattern of means for respect/obligation shows that the youngest
respondents were reportedly more polite to the elder targets than any
of the other respondent age groups. In fact, the youngest respondents
stood apart here because the other respondent age groups were not
significantly different from each other when judging their respect/
obligation to elder targets. Considering teenage targets, the youngest
respondents (aged 20-29 years) reported significantly less respect/
obligation to younger targets than did the two oldest groups of
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
Agree
117
7
6
5
Elder target
Same age target
Teenage target
3.89
4
3.63
3.39
2.95
3
2.93
2.86
2.97
3.36
2.92
2.86
2.85
2.83
2
Disagree
1
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Respondent cohort
Figure 3.
Agree
Interaction Between Target and Cohort for Nonaccommodation.
7
6
5
4.25
4.17
4.06
4
3.71
4.13
3.69
3.42
3
2.82
Elder target
Same age target
Teenage target
2.91
2.80
2.78
3.37
2
Disagree
1
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Respondent cohort
Figure 4.
Interaction Between Target Age and Cohort for Noncommunication.
respondents (aged 40-49 and 50-59 years). Respondents aged 30 to 39
also reported less respect/obligation to younger targets than did the
50- to 59-year-olds. For peers, a linear pattern shows an increase in
respect/obligation with increased respondent age (see Figure 5).
For communication adjustments, post hoc tests indicated that the
older respondents (50-59 years) were less likely than the younger
respondents (20-29 years) to agree that they adjusted their communication to elder targets. This linear pattern was repeated for judgments
of teenage targets, but all respondent age groups were significantly
118
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
7
Agree
6
5
4.84
4.65
4.59
4.64
Elder target
4
3.77
3.72
3.73
3.85
3.84
3.49
3.60
Same age target
Teenage target
3
2.94
2
Disagree
1
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Respondent cohort
Figure 5.
Interaction Between Target Age and Cohort for Respect/Obligation.
different from each other. The older respondents were reportedly less
likely to adjust their communication to young teenage targets than
were the younger respondents.
However, the pattern for judgments of peers was different. Of all the
age groups, respondents aged 30 to 39 years were reportedly most
likely to adjust their communication to peer targets, whereas the youngest respondents (aged 20-29 years) were least likely to adjust their
communication to peers. The older respondents (aged 40-49 and 50-59
years) were more likely to report adjusting their communication to
their peers than the youngest respondents. The difference between the
two older respondent age groups was not significant (see Figure 6).
DISCUSSION
In answering Research Question 1, we found that respondents
between 20 and 29 years reported less frequent contact with elder and
younger targets and more contact with peers than did the older respondents. This reinforces the notion that people in their 20s are less likely
than older respondents to be so involved with family, children, the
home environment, or cross-generational friends and colleagues, and
more likely to be involved with their peers, clubbing, dating, and forming romantic relationships.
The oldest respondents (aged 50-59 years) reported more frequent
contact with elder targets than they did with young teenagers, but
they, too, had the most frequent contact with peers. More frequent contact with elder targets for this respondent group probably reflects the
decreasing distance between their own and the target’s age, such that
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
Agree
119
7
6
5
4.48
4.33
4.31
Elder target
4.19
4
Same age target
Teenage target
3.16
2.96
3
2.79
2.73
2.27
2
2.06
2.05
40-49
50-59
1.89
Disagree
1
20-29
30-39
Respondent cohort
Figure 6.
Interaction Between Target Age and Cohort for Communication
Adjustments.
many of their friends and colleagues (and some of their parents) are
likely to be the same age as the elder targets (i.e., aged 65-85 years).
These cohort data of perceived frequency of contact with different age
targets indicate less reported contact with age outgroups than peers,
with changing patterns across the life span. They also indicate that the
very low frequency of contact between younger college students and
elders found in previous studies is not necessarily generalizable to
community adults across the life span.
Research Question 2 asked whether frequency of contact was related
to communication perceptions. Although results have been somewhat
equivocal, some previous research has indicated that young student
respondents who report more contact with elders tend to rate their
communication experiences more favorably on the dimensions studied
here. In this study, there were no relationships between these variables. Perhaps our results reflect the more varied cross-generational
experiences at work, at leisure, and within the family of this sample of
community adults, whereas college students often experience a relatively segregated environment of the student accommodation and
campus community. Moreover, and unlike previous studies of college
students, these adults reported moderate levels of interaction with all
age groups that varied across the cohorts.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that respondents would differentiate
between the targets, and Hypothesis 2 suggested that this would
reveal concordant communication stereotypes. These hypotheses were
generally supported with respect to perceptions of elders. In line with
previous research, elders were seen as the most nonaccommodative of
the targets. For most respondents, elders were seen as equally or more
120
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
accommodative than same-age peers. These findings reflect stereotypes of elders as being underaccommodative or nonaccommodative on
the negative side but as benevolent and sociable (accommodative) on
the positive side. Also, we found that respondents were most likely to
report adjusting their communication to elders, far more so than to
same-age peers or younger targets. Again, this may reflect notions that
elders are cognitively and communicatively more challenged and so
require such adjustments. In relation to research and theory on
patronizing speech (Ryan et al., 1995), our results suggest that people
believe that they are more likely to use this speech to elders than they
are to peers or young teenage targets. Also in line with previous
research and with social norms of respect for elders, we found that of
the three target groups, the elders commanded the most respect/
obligation.
Again, our hypotheses were generally supported for perceptions of
young teenagers. Dimensions such as noncommunication and selfpromotion may be particularly salient for communication beliefs about
these teenagers. Indeed, they are redolent of stereotypes of teenagers
as tongue-tied, awkward, or simply willfully uncooperative. In selfpromotion, we can see the stereotype of teenagers with attitude—
overconfident and trying to impress. In support of the claim that these
dimensions might be particularly relevant for communication with
young teenagers, results show that it was they who were rated as the
most likely of the three target groups to engage in these behaviors.
Overall, the young teenage targets seem to be the most negatively
characterized of the three target groups. Their communication behavior was viewed as more noncommunicative, less accommodative, and
more self-promotional than the other target groups’. Respondents
reportedly made less adjustment and felt less respect/obligation
toward the young teenage targets compared with elders and peers.
Previous research suggests that community adults (i.e., police officers and social security and benefit officers) believe that teenagers lack
communication skills (Drury & Dennison, 1999, 2000). This seems to
suggest that adults would adjust their communication to adolescents
accordingly. Unless our results indicate a general unwillingness by
adults to meet teenagers halfway by accommodating them and making
appropriate efforts to adjust, we are inclined to assume that we have
been unable to capture these adjustments adequately in this study.
Only further research can unpack these relationships.
Hypothesis 3 predicted different evaluations of the targets across
cohort groups. For ease of presentation, these results will be discussed
with reference to cohort profiles.
The youngest cohort of respondents is distinctive because they
judged elders as more nonaccommodative than did the other cohorts.
They also judged elders as less accommodative than same-age peers,
whereas all other age cohorts judged elders as more accommodative
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
121
than same-age peers. They reportedly felt more respect and obligation
to elder targets and less respect/obligation for young teenage targets
than did the other cohorts. They were more likely to agree that they
adjusted their communication to teenage and elder targets. These findings suggest social and communicative distance between 20- to 29year-olds and elders aged 65 to 85 years, and they also suggest that
same-age peer interaction is of particular importance for younger
respondents. The findings also coincide with reported less frequent
contact between the youngest cohort and elders. This may indicate
that younger people avoid interacting with older people because they
perceive them negatively and feel more social distance from them. On
the other hand, lower frequency of contact could result in young
respondents’ relying more heavily on stereotypes when judging elder
targets. In addition, higher evaluations of respect/obligation seem to
reflect social notions that younger people should respect their elders.
These findings generally support previous studies of perceptions of
intergenerational communication with college-aged respondents. Our
own findings regarding this youngest cohort suggest that their perceptual profile may be distinctive to young adults and not generalizable
across the life span.
This cohort group, which has received scant attention in the current
intergenerational and life-span literature, stands out from the other
respondent age groups because of its distinctive evaluations of the
young teenage targets. More than any of the other respondent age
groups, this group perceived these teenagers as nonaccommodative,
accommodative, and noncommunicative. Possible explanations of
these findings could include the life stage of this group. They now have
distance from their own youth, and perhaps at least those toward the
top end of this age group are more likely to be parenting (or anticipating parenting) their own first teenage offspring; that is, experiencing,
for the first time, the cut and thrust of daily communication with young
teenagers. Our frequency of interaction question did not include familial contact, of course. Although contact with nonfamilial teenagers is
not significantly more frequent for this group than for the others, it
may be that there is an intensity in the newness of this experience in
the lives of some of these 30- to 39-year-olds with their own first teenage offspring (and with the friends of such offspring) that affects their
evaluations of this young age group. We cannot be sure of this from our
own data, but this is clearly an issue that could be usefully explored in
a future investigation. There may, of course, be something about this
particular cohort group’s shared developmental history that explains
this profile. Again, only future research can validate and explain the
patterns indicated for this age cohort vis-à-vis their relationships with
teenagers.
Furthermore, this age cohort constitutes a break with the more
reactive stance of the 20- to 29-year-old respondents and the beginning
122
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
of a linear trend indicating that as age of respondent increased, so did
evaluative positivity of elder targets. As we mentioned above, it is
likely that this and subsequent age cohorts are less focally involved
with peers and instead are building relationships with older people in
the family, work, and their social life. Older people may play an important role mentoring and advising adults in the middle years, as they
grapple with issues of work, home, marriage, and family. This interpretation is strengthened by the frequency of contact data—contact with
same-age peers decreases with increasing cohort age whereas contact
with elders increases. It is also possible that in line with common social
perceptions, the 30th birthday is perceived as a significant life transition that correlates with a change in perceptions of self in relation to
elders.
For nonaccommodation, there was a distinct linear trend, such that
the two groups of older respondents were less likely to judge the elder
targets as nonaccommodative, and the gap between judgments of peers
and elder targets decreased across the life span. A similar but much
smaller trend occurred for evaluations of elder targets’ accommodation
where, again, the gap between elders and peers closed for the oldest
respondents. Discomfort also decreased across the cohort groups, such
that the oldest respondents reportedly felt the least discomfort when
communicating with the targets. These patterns are combined with
respect/obligation to elder targets, where again the gap between judgments of peers and elders gets smaller with increasing respondent age.
These results suggest, therefore, that the older respondents were more
comfortable with communication with elders and felt less social and
communicative distance between themselves and elders. Regardless of
target, discomfort declined with increasing respondent age, indicating
that older respondents feel more at ease and less inclined to cut the
interaction short when conversing with others.
Interestingly, the older respondents were less likely to agree that
they adjusted their communication to younger targets, but there were
few other cohort distinctions in evaluations of younger targets. This
means that although we can say that older respondents might feel
communicatively closer to elders, there is less evidence of changes in
communication distance between the younger targets and increasing
respondent age. In intergroup terms, we could hypothesize that these
results occur because older people are more likely to identify with
elders as an imminent ingroup and that the youngest respondents’
evaluations of elders reflect the fact that they perceive them as an
outgroup. But we cannot wholeheartedly claim that this is matched
with more acceptance of younger targets by the youngest respondents
and more distance between younger targets and older respondents. All
cohorts differentiated younger targets from peers and elders in terms
of accommodation, noncommunication, respect/obligation, and communication adjustments. The results for discomfort and topic accommodation
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
123
also seem to indicate an ingroup-outgroup split, in that elder and younger targets were rated similarly and peers were differentiated on these
dimensions. Hence, it seems that respondents felt the most discomfort
and need to accommodate the topic to an age outgroup—a younger or
an elder person.
Clearly, future research needs to investigate these issues in more
depth. We are cognizant of the inevitable limitations of such a study.
Our division of respondents into cohort groups, although it has some
advantages, means that we tend to homogenize people on the basis of
age. We should also add that we are aware of the dangers of assuming
that cohort differences reflect developmental differences, when they
may be due to historical, contextual influences on development. Effect
sizes for some of our results are small, but nevertheless, the linear patterns across cohorts are consistent and have good face validity. We also
were not able to include evaluations by the target groups themselves—
people aged 13 to 16 years and people older than 60 years—in this
study but aim to do so in future research that will allow comparisons of
ingroup and outgroup perceptions. Our measures of occupation were
confined to a socioeconomic classification whereas in future research,
it will be useful to classify people by their occupational role and contact
with the targets within that role—for example, teachers, health care
workers, and so on.
In future research, we plan to investigate perceptions of familial
others across the cohorts as well as the ingroup-outgroup perceptions
mentioned above. It will be important to replicate and elaborate the
dimensions explored here, especially with a view to discovering what
kind of communication adjustments adults believe they should make
to adolescents, both within and outside the family. Our research has
pointed to various underlying stereotypes of teenagers that need to be
explored in future research. Research such as this is going to be particularly important for forging intergenerational understanding, socializing young people into adult life and the workplace, forging effective
relationships with older generations including those in authority, and
so forth. We feel that we have made modest yet significant progress
toward a life-span perspective on intergenerational communication
processes and have enhanced the cultural diversity of data collected (in
this case, from the United Kingdom) within this research genre.
NOTES
1. This strategy provided a partial answer to Research Question 1. Had frequency of
interaction been related to communication dimensions, as has been shown in previous
studies, analysis would have proceeded with frequency as a covariate. Further consideration of this result and its implications can be found in the discussion.
124
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
2. There were some sex differences, all of which indicate that women tend to be more
evaluatively positive than men. Details of the results can be obtained from the first
author.
REFERENCES
Arnett, J. J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist,
54, 317-326.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bixenstine, V., DeCorte, M., & Bixenstine, B. (1976). Conformity to peer-sponsored misconduct at four grade levels. Developmental Psychology, 12, 226-236.
Bradford Brown, B., Mory, M., & Kinney, D. (1994). Casting adolescent crowds in a relational perspective: caricature, channel, and context. In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, &
T. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (pp. 123-160). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buchanan, C. M., Eccles, J. S., Flanagan, C., Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Harold, R. D.
(1990). Parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about adolescents: Effects of sex and experience.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 363-394.
Buchanan, C. M., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1998). Measuring beliefs about adolescent personality and behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 609-629.
Catan, L., Dennison, C., & Coleman, J. (1996). Getting through: Effective communication
in the teenage years. London: BT Forum.
Chudacoff, H. P. (1989). How old are you? Age consciousness in American Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., & Giles, H. (1991). Language, society, and the elderly. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly:
Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17, 1-41.
Drury, J., Catan, L., Dennison, C., & Brody, R. (1998). Exploring teenagers’ accounts of
bad communication: A new basis for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 177196.
Drury, J., & Dennison, C. (1999). Individual responsibility versus social category problems: Benefit officers’ perceptions of communication with young people. Journal of
Youth Studies, 2, 171-192.
Drury, J., & Dennison, C. (2000). Representations of teenagers among police officers:
Some implications for their communication with young people. Youth & Policy, 66, 6287.
Fox, S., & Giles, H. (1993). Accommodating intergenerational contact: A critique and theoretical model. Journal of Aging Studies, 7, 423-451.
Franklyn-Stokes, A., Harriman, J., Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1988). Information seeking
across the lifespan. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 419-421.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (forthcoming). Adolescents’ lexical repertoires of
peer evaluations: “Boring prats” and “English snobs.” In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland, &
D. Galasinski (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of metalanguage.
Giles, H. (1999). Managing dilemmas in the “silent revolution”: A call to arms! Journal of
Communication, 49, 170-182.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication,
contexts and consequences. In H. Giles, N. Coupland, & J. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of
accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Garrett / COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
125
Giles, H., McCann, R. M., Ota, H., & Noels, K. (2002). Challenging inter-generational
stereotypes across Eastern and Western cultures. In M. S. Kaplan, N. Z. Henkin, &
A. T. Kusano (Eds.), Intergenerational program strategies from a global perspective
(pp. 13-28). Honolulu, HI: University Press of America.
Giles, H., Noels, K. A., Williams, A., Lim, T.-S., Ng, S.-H., Ryan, et al. (2001). Intergenerational communication across cultures: Young people’s perceptions of conversation with
family elders, non-family elders, and same-age peers.
Giles, H., & Williams, A. (1994). Patronizing the young: Forms and evaluations. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 39, 33-53.
Griffin, C. (1993). Representations of youth: The study of youth and adolescence in Britain
and America. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Harwood, J., Giles, H., & Ryan, E. B. (1995). Aging, communication, and intergroup
theory: Social identity and intergenerational communication. In J. Nussbaum &
J. Coupland (Eds.), Handbook of Communication and Aging Research (pp. 133-159).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harwood, J., & Williams, A. (1998). Expectations for communication with positive and
negative stereotypes of older adults. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 47, 11-33.
Hummert, M. L. (1990). Multiple stereotypes of elderly and young adults: A comparison
of structure and evaluations. Psychology and Aging, 5, 182-193.
Hummert, M. L. (1994). Stereotypes of the elderly and patronizing speech. In M. L. Hummert,
J. M. Wiemann, & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Interpersonal communication in older adulthood (pp. 162-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hummert, M. L., Garstka, T. A., & Shaner, J. L. (1995). Beliefs about language performance: Adults’ perceptions about self and elderly targets. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 14, 235-259.
Hummert, M. L., Garstka, T. A., Shaner, J. L., & Strahm, S. (1994). Stereotypes of the
elderly held by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 240-249.
McCann, R. M., Giles, H., Ota, H., & Caraker, R. (2001). Perceptions of intra- and
intergenerational communication among young adults in Thailand, Japan, and the
USA.
Newman, P., & Newman, B. (1988). Early adolescence and its conflict: Group identity vs.
alienation. Adolescence, 11, 261-274.
Ng, S.-H., Moody, J., & Giles, H. (1991). Information-seeking triggered by age. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 33, 269-277.
Noels, K. A., Giles, H., Cai, D., & Turay, L. (1999). Perceptions of inter- and intragenerational communication in the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China: Implications for self-esteem and life satisfaction. South Pacific Journal
of Psychology, 10, 120-135.
Noels, K. A., Giles, H., Gallois, C., & Ng, S.-H. (2001). Intergenerational communication
and psychological adjustment: A cross-cultural examination of Hong Kong and Australian adults. In M. L. Hummert & J. Nussbaum (Eds.), Communication, aging, and
health: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 249-278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Nussbaum, J. F., & Coupland, J. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of communication and aging
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London:
Longman.
Rose, D. (1995). A report on Phase 1 of the ESRC review of social classifications. Swindon,
UK: Economic Social Research Council.
Ryan, E. B., Hummert, M. L., & Boich, L. H. (1995). Communication predicaments of
aging: Patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 14, 144-166.
126
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2002
Ryan, E. B., & Kwong See, S. (1993). Age-based beliefs about memory change in adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 48, 199-201.
Ryan, E. B., Kwong See, S., Maneer, W. B., & Trovato, D. (1992). Age-based perceptions of
language performance among younger and older adults. Communication Research,
19, 311-331.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York:
HarperCollins.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Toothaker, L. E. (1991). Multiple comparisons for researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Turner, J. C., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (1981). Intergroup behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Waterman, A. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension
of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18, 341-358.
Williams, A., Coupland, J., Folwell, A., & Sparks, L. (1997). Talking about Generation X:
Defining them as they define themselves. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 251-277.
Williams, A., & Garrett, P. (forthcoming). Moving the goalposts: Adults’ estimates of chronological age corresponding with age labels.
Williams, A., & Giles, H. (1991). Sociopsychological perspectives on elderly language and
communication. Ageing and Society, 11, 103-126.
Williams, A., & Giles, H. (1996). Retrospecting intergenerational conversations: The perspective of young adults. Human Communication Research, 23, 220-250.
Williams, A., & Giles, H. (1998). Communication of agism. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp. 136-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williams, A., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2001). Intergenerational communication across the lifespan. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williams, A., Ota, H., Giles, H., Pierson, H. D., Gallois, C., Ng, S.-H., et al. (1997).
Young people’s beliefs about intergenerational communication: An initial crosscultural analysis. Communication Research, 24, 370-393.
Zebrowitz, L., & Montepare, J. (2000). “Too young, too old”: Stigmatizing adolescents and
elders. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 334-373). New York: Guilford.