This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the In recent years, aging has emerged as a focal topic of increasing interest and importance in both academic research and public discourse worldwide. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects 2022, global life expectancy reached 72.8 years in 2019, an increase of more than 9 years since 1990. In more developed regions, life expectancy often exceeds 80 years, with Japan leading at 84.7 years and several European countries following closely. The global proportion of people aged 65 and above increased from 6% in 1990 to 9.3% in 2020 and is projected to reach 16% by 2050 (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UN DESA], 2022). Particularly noteworthy is the unprecedented growth of the "oldest-old" population (aged 80 and above), which is projected to triple from 157 million in 2019 to 459 million in 2050. The number of centenarians globally has also grown significantly, with estimates suggesting an increase from approximately 573,000 in 2020 to 3.7 million by 2050 (World Health Organization [WHO], 2022). This demographic shift represents a global phenomenon, though with varying intensity across different regions, with Europe and East Asia experiencing the most pronounced aging trends.
Although research agrees that the increase in longevity is a great achievement due to several factors, e.g., advances in medicine, technological progress, and better living conditions, this achievement often turns into a challenge, because of its implications in terms of care services and costs (Morganti & Castelnuovo, 2024). These implications could translate into greater challenges for both the society and older adults, including ageism (North & Fiske, 2015), which refers to “negative attitudes, prejudice, and discrimination toward older people” (Butler, 1969). Ageism is a form of stereotyping based on age, that derives from the human tendency to categorize individuals based on key external attributes, such as age, gender, and race. Importantly, we tend to form precise stereotypes about people populating these categories (Allport, 1954). According to the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske et al., 2002), individuals perceive social groups as high or low in two fundamental dimensions: warmth and competence. These dimensions emerge from evolutionary needs to rapidly assess whether others have beneficial or harmful intentions (warmth) and whether they possess the capability to act on these intentions (competence). The universality of these dimensions has been demonstrated across various social contexts and judgment domains (Koch et al., 2016). In the case of older adults, we tend to perceive them as higher in the warmth dimension, but low in the competence dimension (Lev et al., 2018). Thus, ageism is often composed of negative perception of the intellectual and physical competence of these people accompanied by the perception of greater morality and affability. When considering ageism, it can also refer to prejudice against younger people. However, this form of prejudice is different in nature, since young people are expected to grow and eventually become part of the referent group for ageist attitudes - middle-aged adults. Older people, by contrast, are only expected to decline mentally and physically (Iversen et al., 2009). As a consequence, ageism may be more subtle compared to other forms of prejudice as it is generally socially accepted to have some kind of negative attitudes toward older people, at least in Western countries (Levy & Banaji, 2002).
In less-developed countries, where health care services are less available (Shetty, 2012), ageism shows a more negative impact on health outcomes, as compared to the more-developed ones (Chang et al., 2020). This implies a lower efficacy in contrasting the negative effects of ageing by healthcare professionals and, therefore, a greater impact on older people’s health (Pietrzak et al., 2016). Ageism has shown consistent negative effects on older adults’ physical and mental health.
Indeed, in their systematic review, Chang et al. (2020) found eleven health domains in which ageism was significantly associated with worse health among older adults that can be broadly differentiated in two overarching levels: structural vs. individual. At a structural level, ageism manifests through denied healthcare access, exclusion from health research, and devaluation of older adults' lives, evident in age-based treatment rationing (Bowling et al., 2002; Mariotto et al., 1999). In workplace contexts, lack of opportunities for older employees predicts depressive symptoms (Marchiondo et al., 2019; Shippee et al., 2019) and long-term illnesses (Viitasalo & Nätti, 2015). At an individual level, negative self-perceptions of aging are associated with reduced longevity (Zhao et al., 2017) and poor quality of life. Self-ageism (i.e., the tendency to internalize and apply ageist attitudes towards oneself) also influences health behaviours, leading to excessive smoking and drinking, unhealthy diet, and poor medical compliance. The effects extend to social relationships through isolation and low support, and to mental health with greater depressive symptoms and cognitive impairment, including minor neurocognitive damage affecting memory. Additionally, ageism is linked to physical illness, hospitalizations, functional impairment, and chronic diseases. The review identified three key agents perpetuating ageism: societal institutions, older adults themselves through internalized biases, and prejudiced individuals at an interpersonal level. In our scoping literature review we focused on the role of other prejudiced individuals, particularly grandchildren.
According to Drury et al. (2016) and Sun et al. (2019), ageism can damage intergenerational solidarity and impede the development of an age-friendly society, by limiting relationships between young adults and older people. In this regard, two main factors can reduce ageism: a positive representation of aging and intergenerational contact, especially contact of high or positive quality (Marques et al., 2020). Regarding the first protective factor, it could be useful for the media to offer positive images of older adults (Oró-Piqueras & Marques, 2017) because this could lead to a reduction of stereotypes towards older people (Marques et al., 2020). On the other side, with respect to intergenerational contact, Marques et al. (2020) highlighted the importance of creating positive encounters among generations when doing something together in a positive context. Indeed, according to the intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954), “the impact of intergroup contact on prejudice is maximized when four features of the contact situation are present: equal status between the groups in the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the support of institutions and authorities for the contact experience” (Tam et al., 2006, p. 414). Later, Pettigrew (1998) added a fifth condition: “the contact situation must provide the participants with the opportunity to become friends” (p. 76). The condition of a close relationship can facilitate extensive and repeated contact that is crucial for attitude change (Pettigrew, 1998). In the context of age-segregation (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2006), however, intensive and positive intergenerational contact is relatively infrequent. In this context, the greatest opportunities for intergenerational exchanges occur within the family (Uhlenberg, 2000).
In light of the above, the grandparent-grandchild relationship seems to offer the possibility of close and generally positive intergenerational contact. Based on these assumptions, it is important to understand how this family relationship could have a role in attitudes toward older people for two main reasons. First of all, as mentioned above, most of the contact between the generations of young and older people takes place in the family, and this contact is generally more satisfying than that outside this context (Ng et al., 1997; Williams & Giles, 1996). Secondly, the grandparent-grandchild relationship is generally characterized by intimacy and closeness that can maximize the positive effects of contact (Banker & Gaertner, 1998). Indeed, this contact offers a special opportunity to reduce ageism at a time when communities are segregated by age.
The grandparent-grandchild relationship seems, therefore, to have promising features for ageism reduction. In line with the above, the objective of this scoping literature review was to provide an overview of papers that jointly investigated the grandparent-grandchild relationship and ageism, specifically focusing on the associations between these two aspects. Indeed, literature on the associations between features of the grandparent-grandchild relationship and ageism is still scant and no scoping reviews have been conducted so far on this theme. In fact, ageism toward older adults is a topic that has already been investigated in previous research. For example, Marques et al.’s (2020) systematic review aimed to collect empirical studies exploring the determinants of ageism over a period spanning from 1970 to 2017. Among the identified determinants, both the quality and frequency of contact with grandparents emerged as relevant factors. However, the present article differs from Marques et al.’s (2020) work in terms of its research objective. Specifically, rather than generally identifying ageism determinants, this study focuses specifically on the association between the grandparent–grandchild relationship and ageism, based on the hypothesis that such a relationship may play a central role for ageist attitudes because of its features. Indeed, only 2 of the 18 articles included in this scoping literature review overlap with those reviewed by Marques et al. (2020). So, the aim was to summarize the current knowledge about it and suggest future directions for expanding the research in this field. Given the novelty of the review and the expected limited amount and likely heterogeneity of the searched literature, we did not intend to conduct a meta-analytical synthesis. Nonetheless, we reported statistical data, whenever available, to gauge the direction, significance, and size of the associations found.
Method
The Research Strategy
To carry out the present scoping literature review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), we followed a structured searching process (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018), that started with the identification of all the publications written from 1978 to 2024, using the online databases ProQuest, Scopus, and PubMed. The research was conducted making use of a query that combines two sets of keywords through the Boolean operators AND and OR. The first group of keywords referred to the grandparent-grandchild relationship; the second group referred to ageism. Specifically, the query was composed of the following keywords: grandparent* OR grandchild* OR nephew* OR niece* OR grandmother* OR grandma* OR granny OR grannies OR grandpa* OR grandfather* AND ageism OR “age discrimination” OR “age-related attitude*” OR “age-related stereotype*” OR “age-related prejudice*”.
Identification
We identified 277 results using two main selection criteria. First, we included only peer reviewed publications. Second, these publications had to be written in English. Duplicates were eliminated, achieving 198 results. In addition, to ensure high-quality research, before proceeding with title and abstract screening, we considered journal articles only, consequently removing other types of documents (book chapter, note, conference paper, book, editorial, film review, book review, commentary, letter, obituary, general information, biography, etc.). We retained 164 articles for screening.
Screening
The 164 articles were submitted to title and abstract screening to assess their relevance for this scoping literature review. We removed documents whose titles and abstracts were unrelated to the theme or the association between the grandparent-grandchild relationship and ageism was mentioned in the article but was not among the main objectives of the study (e.g., an article, whose aim was to find differences and similarities in aging attitudes toward U.S and Taiwanese students, mentioned the association between aging and the grandparent–grandchildren relationship from the point of view of U.S. students, whereas the Taiwanese associated aging with the spousal relationship; Liou, 2017). After this process, 26 articles were kept, whose full texts were assessed for eligibility. Upon review of the full-texts, we excluded articles that were outside the scope, for example, because they almost exclusively focused on a single matter of interest, mostly on ageism, with little or minimal account of the grandparent-grandchild relationship (e.g., Phoenix and Sparkes (2006) investigated how young athletes used lifestyles and representations provided by parents and grandparents to shape their future self-aging, but the authors did not examine the grandparent-grandchild relationship). At the end, we included 18 articles in the final review. A flow diagram of databases research and article selection, according to PRISMA statement, is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1
A Flow Diagram of Databases Research and Article Selection
After selecting the final 18 articles, we grouped them into 5 broad categories based on the aspect of the grandparent-grandchild relationship that was investigated. As the objective of the current project was a scoping literature review, our primary aim was to explore the current state of the field. Therefore, we opted for an inductive approach, allowing categories to emerge from the data rather than imposing predefined categories. The first author initially identified these categories, and the classification was then discussed with the entire research team. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached.
Results
Research Approaches and Publication Years
As for the research approaches of the 18 articles included in this scoping literature review, there was a clear prevalence of quantitative studies (n = 13)—divided into cross-sectional (n = 11) and experimental ones (n = 2)—followed by a small number of qualitative ones (n = 3), 1 publication using mixed methods, and 1 narrative literature review.
The 18 articles were published between 1994 and 2023. 56% of them (n = 10) were published from 2020 to 2023. The remaining 8 articles were published from 1994 to 2019. The full list of sources included in this scoping review is in the Supplemental Material.
Samples Characteristics
With respect to the features of the samples included in this scoping literature review, it is important to note that one publication was a literature review, and two publications were composed of two studies each. For this reason, we reported participants’ characteristics (informants, sex and age) referring to the 19 studies included in the articles (see Table 1).
Table 1
Informant/s, Age and Sex of the Samples
| Article | Informant/s | Age | Sex |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haight et al. (1994) | Students | 70% between 20-40 | 52 females, 5 males |
| Silverstein and Parrott (1997) | Adults | 14.3% between 18-24 28% between 25-34 23.1% between 35-44 21.3% between 45-64 13.3% +65 | 60,5% females, 39.5% males |
| Harwood et al. (2005) | Study 1: students Study 2: students | Study 1: M = 19.86 Study 2: 19-26; M = 19.92 | Study 1: 119 females, 73 males Study 2: 55 females, 45 males |
| Tam et al. (2006) | Students | M = 20.1 | 50 females, 27 males |
| Abrams et al. (2008) | Study 1: retired adults Study 2: older adults | Study 1: 58-84; M = 69.14 Study 2: +60; M = 72.22 | Study 1: 25 females, 26 males Study 2: 50 females, 34 males |
| Dow et al. (2016) | Younger people and older people | Younger people: 16–23; M = 19.5 Older people: 65–89; M=79.75 | Younger people: 5 females, 5 males Older people: 6 females, 4 males |
| Flamion et al. (2019) | Children and adolescents | 27.5% between 7–9 25.1% between 10–12 47.4% between 13–16 M = 11.5 | 597 (51.9%) females, 554 (48.1%) males |
| Kim et al. (2020) | Students | / | Females: Japanese 160 (52.1%), Korean 158 (41.0%) Males: Japanese 147 (47.9%), Korean 227 (59.0%) |
| Flamion et al. (2020) | Child-parent dyads | Children: M = 4.6 Parents: 22-62; M = 36.2 | Children: 59 (46.8%) females, 67 (53.2%) males Parents: 104 (82.5%) mothers, 22 (17.5%) fathers |
| Smith and Charlton (2020) | Adults | 18-84; M = 35.40 | 150 females, 159 males |
| Newsham et al. (2021) | Adults | 18-+60 | 18 years old: 8 (80%) females, 2 (20%) males 19 years old: 7 (70%) females, 3 (30%) males 20 years old: 4 (40%) females, 6 (60%) males 21 years old: 6 (60%) females, 4 (40%) males 22 years old: 6 (60%) females, 4 (40%) males 23-29 years old: 4 (80%) females, 1 (20%) male 30-39 years old: 4 (80%) females, 1 (20%) male 40-49 years old: 4 (80%) females, 1 (20%) male 50-59 years old: 2 (40%) females, 3 (60%) males 60+ years old: 1 (100%) female, 0 (0%) males |
| Verhage et al. (2021) | Young adults | 37.1% between 15-16 20%: 17 17.1%: 18 2.9%: 19 5.7%: 20 8.6%: 21 8.6% between 22-24 | 31 females (88.6%), 4 males (11.4%) |
| Muntsant et al. (2021) | Students | 19-38; M = 21.02 | 59.2% females, 40.8% males |
| Hoffmann and Kornadt (2022) | Young adults | 18-30; M = 22.20 | 225 (73.8%) females, 79 (25.9%) males, 1 (0.3%) other or n/a |
| Bellingtier et al. (2022) | Adolescents and young adults | 14-33; M = 22.66 | 60% females |
| Sönmez et al. (2022) | Students | 18-30; M = 21.4 | 245 (46.8%) females, 279 (53.2%) males |
| Liao et al. (2023) | College students | M = 21.50 | 101 females |
Ageism Measures
As for the measures used in the articles of this scoping literature review to assess ageism, they are reported in Table 2. Most studies explored ageism in terms of explicit attitudes towards ageing or older adults, while only a few studies explored implicit attitudes. Some articles also used measures of stereotypes, and one explored the role of attitudes towards public support measures for older people. Specifically, among all the measures employed in the studies (N = 20), some were used in several articles: the semantic differential scale (N = 5; Drury et al., 2016; Gluth et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2020; Rosencranz & McNevin, 1969; Wright et al., 1997), an open-ended image-of-aging question (N = 3; Flamion et al., 2019), the Kogan’s Attitude Toward Old People Scale (N = 2; Kogan, 1961; Liu et al., 2014), the Fraboni Scale of Ageism (N = 2; Boudjemad & Gana, 2009) and the Implicit Association Test (N = 2; Greenwald et al., 1998; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006). On the contrary, the following measures were adopted on solely one article each: the AgeCog scale (N = 1; Steverink et al., 2001), the Ageism Attitude Scale (N = 1; Vefikuluçay & Terzioğlu, 2011); the Children’s View on Aging Scale (N = 1; Marks et al., 1985; Newman et al., 1997), the Young Children’s Views of Older People (N = 1; Caspi, 1984; Seefeldt et al., 1977; Marks et al., 1985), reaction times when presented with four adjectives describing “Youth” and “Older People” (N = 1; Muntsant et al., 2021) and six statements evaluating attitudes toward public support of older adults (N = 1; Silverstein & Parrott, 1997).
Table 2
Ageism Measures
| Reference/s | Measure | Investigated constructs in these scoping literature review articles |
|---|---|---|
| Rosencranz and McNevin (1969) | Aging Semantic Differential (ASD) | Attitudes toward aging |
| Gluth et al. (2010) | German version of the Aging Semantic Differential (ASD) | Age stereotypes |
| Wright et al. (1997) | General Evaluation Scale | Explicit attitudes toward older people |
| Kim et al. (2020) | Semantic differential scale | Images of older adults |
| Drury et al. (2016) | Semantic differential scales (adapted) | Opinions toward older adults |
| Kogan (1961) | Kogan's Attitude Toward Old People Scale (KAOP) | Attitudes toward aging |
| Liu et al. (2014) | Chinese version of the Kogan’s Attitude toward Older People Scale (KAOP) | Explicit attitudes toward older people |
| Boudjemad and Gana (2009) | French version of the Fraboni Scale of Ageism–Revisited (FSA–R) | Youth’s vision of aging; parents’ views of older people |
| Steverink et al. (2001) | AgeCog scale | Views on aging |
| Vefikuluçay & Terzioğlu (2011) | Ageism Attitude Scale (AAS) | Attitudes toward ageism |
| Marks et al. (1985); Newman et al. (1997) | Third section of the Children’s View on Aging scale (CVOA) (adapted to the French language) | Youth’s vision of aging |
| Marks et al. (1985); Seefeldt et al. (1977); Caspi (1984) | Young Children’s Views of Older People (YCVOP) | Children’s views of older people |
| Flamion et al. (2019) | One open-ended image-of-aging question | Youth's vision of aging; children’s views of older people; parents’ views of older people |
| Silverstein and Parrott (1997) | Six statements | Attitudes toward public support of the elderly |
| Muntsant et al. (2021) | An answer in 30 seconds of 4 adjectives describing ‘Youth’ and ‘Older people’ | Stereotypes about youth and older people |
| Greenwald et al. (1998) | Implicit Association Test (IAT) | Implicit attitudes toward older people |
| Karpinski and Steinman (2006) | Single-Category Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT) | Implicit attitudes toward older people |
Grandparent-Grandchild Relationship Variables
We clustered the articles in 5 categories based on the grandparent-grandchild relationship: the first four categories were based on the different grandparent-grandchild relationship variables that were investigated in direct association with ageist attitudes and are reported below in order of frequency; the fifth category, instead, grouped together variables used to explain or modulate the association between grandparent-grandchild relationship and grandchildren’s ageist attitudes (i.e., mediators and moderators). The first category included 8 studies and referred to global features of contact with the grandparent, in particular contact frequency and contact quality. In the first category, in fact, contact quality referred to a general perception of the relationship quality, rather than specific types of interaction (e.g., communication, support). Indeed, 4 studies examined communication processes, like self-disclosure (i.e., the willingness to share personal information in the grandparent-grandchild relationship) and accommodation (i.e., adjusting one’s communication to the other’s needs), and were therefore included in a second category. The third category comprised 3 studies and referred to features of closeness between grandchild and grandparent, measured in terms of perspective taking, empathy and inclusion of the other in the self. The fourth group, composed of 2 studies, concerned interaction anxiety with the grandparent, that is, apprehension arising from concerns about the interaction with the grandparent. Finally, the last category referred to factors (e.g., typicality, group salience) that may explain or modulate the association between the grandparent-grandchild relationship and ageism (i.e., mediators and moderators). In the next paragraphs, a review of the results concerning the categories outlined above and their associations with ageism are reported. The results concerned 17 articles out of 18 because Muntsant et al.’s (2021) work did not precisely fit into these categories, but we thought it relevant for this scoping literature review. Indeed, the authors studied beliefs, stereotypes, and knowledge about older people and grandparents and participants’ ageism awareness. Participation in this research helped participants, i.e., a sample of university students, to realize unconscious ageism, specifically toward the older population (Muntsant et al., 2021). Moreover, the authors highlighted the importance of grandparents in a sample of university students’ life observing the reference to grandparents in a great number of answers to a questionnaire about older adults in general but not vice versa. Thus, overall, this work seems to account for the findings of this scoping literature review regarding the association between ageism and the grandparent-grandchild relationship.
Category 1: Contact Quality and Contact Frequency (N = 8)
The importance of contact quality with grandparents emerged with several nuances. For example, youngsters who attended an intergenerational contact program often used their grandparent-grandchild relationship to conceptualize general older adults and older people met in the program, especially when thinking about positively framed aspects (Verhage et al., 2021). Indeed, thanks to the mutual fondness, familiarity turned out to be related to more positive views (Dow et al., 2016) and more positive children’s attitudes toward older individuals (Robinson & Howatson-Jones, 2014), to the point that grandparents themselves could be so admired that they had a powerful influence on nursing students’ attitudes, as reported in the experimental study conducted by Haight et al. (1994). Newsham and colleagues (2021) intended to compare attitudes towards older adults the respondents had more “extensive contact” with (i.e., their grandparents), with attitudes towards a general “old person”. It was found that college students associated grandparents with a clear prevalence of positive emotional terms (e.g., loving, proud, happy, caring) providing more equivocal terms when thinking about an “old person” (Newsham et al., 2021) and, similarly, in their cross-sectional study, Flamion and colleagues (2020) found that children who spontaneously evoked their grandparents, when they were asked to think about an ”old person”, reported better views of older people than those who did not evoke their grandparents in terms of images of aging (M = 23.7, SEM = 2.5 vs M = 13.4, SEM = 2.8 respectively; z = -2.3, p < .05) and stereotypes (M = 1.54, SEM = .23 vs M = -.27, SEM = .23 respectively; z = -4.7, p < .001). In other cross-sectional studies, it emerged that contact quality was associated with a more positive vision of aging (F = 3.61, p < .05, Cohen's d = 0.37; Flamion et al., 2019) and lower scores of ageism (F = 19.38, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.69 and F = 22.36, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.78; Flamion et al., 2019) in children and adolescents and with better explicit attitudes toward older adults in undergraduate and college students (respectively: Study 2: r = .32, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.68 in Harwood et al., 2005 and r = .30, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.63 in Liao et al., 2023). Harwood et al. (2005) also found that contact quality in high-frequency grandparent relationships (Study 1: b = .31, SE = .11, p = .007, Cohen's d ≈ 0.49) predicted better explicit attitudes toward older adults. Nevertheless, Hoffmann and Kornadt (2022) found that the quality of contact in the grandparent-grandchild relationship seemed not to be related to age stereotypes (i.e., “being old-fashioned”) but an experimental study showed that only grandparents with less positive contact with their grandchildren performed more poorly in a math test when reporting more stereotype threat (i.e., the risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s social group, which can undermine performance in the stereotyped domain, which occurs when individuals become aware of the stereotype and experience anxiety or pressure that hinders their abilities), thereby showing that contact quality protected grandparents from the negative effects of stereotype threat (simple slope for grandparents with low contact quality: b = -2.01, t(45) = 5.27, p < .001; Abrams et al., 2008).
Lastly, Hoffmann and Kornadt (2022), in their cross-sectional study, showed how contact quality was negatively associated with two domains of self-perceptions of ageing, i.e., physical decline (e.g., the perception of being less vital and fit; r = -.15, p < .05, Cohen’s d ≈ -0.30) and social loss (e.g., the feeling of being lonely; r = -.17, p < .001, Cohen’s d ≈ -0.35), but not with continued growth (i.e., the possibility to realize one’s own ideas). Moreover, analyses regarding the model that considered both frequency and quality of contact showed that contact quality was significantly related to all three domains of ageing self-perceptions: continued growth (b = .10, SE = .04, β = .17, p < .05, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ 0.30), social loss (b = -.10, SE = .04, β = -.18, p < .001, Cohen’s d ≈ -0.30) and physical decline (b = -.09, SE = .04, β = -.17, p < .05, Cohen’s d ≈ -0.27; Hoffmann & Kornadt, 2022). In sum, research consistently found that higher contact quality between grandparents and grandchildren was associated with better attitudes towards aging and older people.
Research regarding contact frequency in the grandparent-grandchild relationship seemed to be less consistent and its findings were solely based on cross-sectional studies. It was found that frequency of contact was positively related to better explicit attitudes toward older people (r = .36, p < .001, Cohen’s d ≈ 0.77) in a sample of college students (Liao et al., 2023) and that more frequent past and current contact with grandparents were related to more positive stereotypes toward older people (b = -.12, 95% CI [-.22, -.01], β = -.20, p = .036, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ -0.44 ; Bellingtier et al., 2022). Additionally, past contact with grandparents positively moderated age differences in young people’s attitudes toward public policies supporting older adults (past contact M = 2.53 vs. no past contact M = 1.63, b = -.066, p < .05; Silverstein & Parrott, 1997). Specifically, among youth who had no contact with grandparents during their childhood, young adults (18-24 years old) had more negative attitudes compared to youth over 25 years, but among those who had more contact this difference was reduced (Silverstein & Parrott, 1997).
Other studies, however, revealed that contact frequency was not associated with ageism (Flamion et al., 2019), nor with self-perceptions of aging and age stereotypes (Hoffmann & Kornadt, 2022), while some research revealed that contact frequency was associated with higher ageism. Indeed, Kim et al. (2020) revealed that Japanese students who had lived with grandparents had a higher probability of considering older adults slow (OR = 1.955, p = .032, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ 0.37) compared to Japanese students who had never lived with their grandparents. Similarly, Korean students who had never lived with their grandparents tended to perceive older adults as plainer compared to Korean students who had lived with their grandparents (74.0% vs. 63.2%, χ2 = 4.57, p = .039, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ 0.33; Kim et al., 2020). These results, however, can be interpreted in light of findings from Smith and Charlton (2020) who found that growing up with an older person was correlated with lower current opinions (r = -.180, p < .05, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ -0.37) and perceptions of more negative current interactions with other older adults (r = -.127, p < .05, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ -0.26), but this association was stronger if the current contact with older adults was low (simple slope: t = -3.24, p = .001, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ -0.37) or average (simple slope: t = -2.44, p = .02, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ -0.28) rather than high (simple slope: t = -.315, p = .75, estimated Cohen’s d ≈ -0.37). Smith and Charlton (2020) concluded that these results confirmed the literature on the positive effect of intergroup contact on the evaluation of the outgroup and the role of contact frequency.
Overall, we could conclude that both quality and frequency of contact with grandparents are potentially important factors associated with a reduction of ageism and stereotypes and an improvement of attitudes toward older people and the aging process. Nonetheless, while the positive effect of contact quality appeared consistent, less consistent findings emerged regarding contact frequency. Moreover, some studies showed that the relationship between contact with the grandparent and ageism was qualified by other variables, such as typicality, grandparent’s health, and interaction anxiety (see Category 5: factors influencing the process).
Category 2: Communication Processes (N = 4)
Cross-sectional studies regarding communication processes found associations between positive attitudes toward older adults and both a) greater self-disclosure (i.e., mutual disclosure, r = .27, p < .01 in Harwood et al., 2005; self-disclosure with the grandparent, in terms of having good or very good communication with grandparents, b = 2.69, SE = .66, β = .17, t = 4.04, p < .001 in Sönmez et al., 2022) and b) higher grandparent-grandchild accommodation (r = .41, p < .001; Harwood et al., 2005), that is, adapting the communication (in terms of content and style) to the needs of one’s relationship partner (i.e., the grandparent and the grandchild) which is related to their closeness (Harwood et al., 2000). Harwood et al. (2005) hypothesized that accommodation, for example, enacted by a grandchild, could lead grandchildren to start more sensitive communication with their grandparent that could be easily extended to other older adults and facilitate the expression of better attitudes toward older individuals. However, it’s important to pay attention to the risks of over-accommodation (e.g., over-activating more than required to meet someone else’s needs; Giles & Williams, 1994) and under-accommodation (e.g., neglecting someone else's needs; Coupland et al., 1988b) that could have negative effects on the other person.
Regarding stereotypes, Kim et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional study reporting how Korean students who had more possibilities of talking to their grandparents and who had more positive memories of them were more likely to consider older people as wise than Korean students with fewer possibilities and less positive memories (73.4% vs. 60.7%, χ2 = 7.10, p = .01), whereas Japanese students who had more possibilities of talking to their grandparents and who had more positive memories of them were less likely to assess them as conservative (60.4% vs. 76.0%, χ2 = 8.62, p = .01) and slow (70.1% vs. 84.3%, χ2 = 8.77, p = .004) than counterparts with fewer possibilities and positive memories. Furthermore, Verhage and colleagues (2021) found that stereotypes towards older people living in a long-term care facility were reduced the more similar the person was perceived to be to the respondents’ grandparents in terms of communication style (i.e., the kind of questions they asked and their interest in the respondent’s life). Such a similarity in communication encouraged an open and natural contact with older residents, mutual self-disclosure, and the acknowledgement of older adults’ heterogeneity (Verhage et al., 2021).
Summarizing, it seems that higher quality communication in the grandparent-grandchild relationship was related to better attitudes and stereotypes toward older adults and, in general, a greater acknowledgement of the variety and diversity of older people that could counteract a stereotypical view of them.
Category 3: Closeness (N = 3)
Less represented were studies examining closeness in the grandparent-grandchild relationship, in terms of perspective taking (i.e., the act of perceiving a situation or understanding a concept from an alternative point of view), empathy (i.e., the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another) and inclusion of the other into the self (i.e., the extent to which individuals include others in their self-concept). From these cross-sectional studies it emerged that more positive explicit attitudes towards older adults were associated with all three variables: perspective taking (r = .48, p < .001; Harwood et al., 2005), empathy (r = .38, p < .01; Tam et al., 2006) and inclusion of the grandparent in the self (r = .34, p < .001, Liao et al., 2023).
Category 4: Interaction Anxiety (N = 2)
Only 2 articles focused on interaction anxiety in the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Both cross-sectional studies showed that interaction anxiety with grandparents was associated with worse explicit attitudes towards older people (r = -.46, p < .001 in Harwood et al., 2005; r = -.37, p < .01 in Tam et al., 2006).
Category 5: Factors Influencing the Process
Some cross-sectional studies examined factors that could influence the association between ageism and the grandparent–grandchild relationship - namely, variables acting as mediators and moderators. Five variables concerning the grandparent–grandchild relationship, previously identified in terms of their direct association with ageism, were also examined as potential mediators in the association between grandparent-grandchild relationship and ageism. These factors pertained to the three dimensions of closeness discussed above - i.e., perspective-taking, empathy, and inclusion of the grandparent into the self - as well as interaction anxiety and accommodation. In terms of moderators, two variables were especially considered: typicality (i.e., how typical of older adults was the grandparent) and the grandparent’s health.
With regard to the mechanisms underlying the relationship between the grandparent-grandchild relationship and ageism (i.e., mediators), the reviewed literature showed that the inclusion of the grandparent into the self mediated the relationship between contact and explicit attitudes toward older individuals: more frequent and higher quality contact with the grandparent was associated with greater inclusion of the grandparent into one’s self (IE = 1.13, 95% CI [0.26, 2.20]; IE = 2.61, 95% CI [0.26, 5.00] for contact frequency and quality respectively), which, in turn, was related to better attitudes toward older adults. Moreover, Harwood and colleagues (2005) found that higher accommodation (b = .21, SE = .04, p < .01), lower interaction anxiety (b = -.64, SE = .09, p < .01) and higher perspective taking (b = .48, SE = .07, p < .001) mediated the effects of higher contact quality with the grandparent on better explicit attitudes towards older adults. When all these mediators were included simultaneously in the model, only perspective taking remained a significant mediator in the relationship between contact quality and explicit attitudes (b = .48, SE = .07, p < .05; Harwood et al., 2005). Lastly, according to Tam et al. (2006), both lower interaction anxiety and higher empathy mediated the effects of higher self-disclosure on better explicit attitudes toward older people (zαzβ = 5.60, p < .01; zαzβ = 6.26, p < .01, for interaction anxiety and empathy respectively). Regarding interaction anxiety, Smith and Charlton (2020) highlighted that growing up with an older adult affected by an illness was correlated to decreased interaction positivity (r = -.20, p < .05) and lower opinions about older people in general (r = -.27, p < .05). Through further analysis, the authors explained these results in light of the role of current interaction anxiety with general older adults, such that higher levels of anxiety observed in those who grew up with an ill grandparent mediated the association with lower opinions of the outgroup.
With regard to the factors that modulated the relationship between grandparent-grandchild relationship and ageism (i.e., moderators), typicality was shown to have a moderating role on the positive association between quality of contact and better explicit attitudes (b = .96, SE = .30, t = 3.26, p < .01), which was stronger when typicality was high (b = 11.24, p < .001) rather than low (b = 8.21, p < .001). It also moderated the association between better implicit attitudes and higher contact frequency (b = .05, SE = .01, t = 3.94, p < .001), which was stronger if the respondents were more in contact with grandparents who were considered highly typical older adults (b = .07, p < .01; Liao et al., 2023). Regarding grandparent's health, Flamion et al. (2019) found that youth who rated their grandparents as being in very good health exhibited a more positive perception of aging, lower scores of ageism, and more positive evaluations of older adults, when compared to those who rated their grandparents’ health as simply good or not good (perception of aging: F = 6.27, p < .01; ageism: F = 3.49, p < .05; evaluation of older adults: F = 4.85, p < .01). Hoffmann and Kornadt (2022) found that the correlation between better perceptions of one’s own aging (in terms of less physical decline and more growth) and higher contact quality was significant only if the grandparent was not ill, F(1,285) = 5.67, p < .02, 95% CI [-.25, -.06]. Moreover, according to Sönmez et al. (2022), having older family members with high care needs was identified as a factor associated with ageism, compared to individuals with low care need older family members. The effect was interpreted in terms of the significant emotional and physical demands on caregivers of high care need parents, potentially resulting in adverse outcomes (e.g., depression, burnout) which could foster more negative views of aging and attitudes toward older people. Another interesting variable was group salience (i.e., how aware participants were of the respective groups of belonging, in terms of age: grandparent vs. grandchild). In their first study, Harwood et al. (2005) found that contact quality in high-frequency grandparent-grandchild relationships predicted undergraduate students’ better explicit attitudes toward older adults exclusively when group salience was high (b = .51, SE = .12, p < .001). These results were confirmed in a second study in which contact quality was associated with better explicit attitudes, only when group salience was high (b = .59, SE = .14, p < .001).
Moderated mediations were also tested by some studies. For example, the mediation role of greater accommodation, lower interaction anxiety and higher perspective taking in the relation between higher contact quality with the grandparent and better explicit attitudes towards older adults was significant exclusively in a high group salience condition (Goodman test = 2.01, p < .05; Goodman test = 1.72, p < .09; Goodman test = 2.06, p < .04, for accommodation, interaction anxiety, and perspective taking respectively). Specifically, when group salience was high, grandchildren’s perspective taking in the relationship with the grandparent was the most powerful mediator of the positive relationship between contact quality and positive explicit attitudes toward older adults (Harwood et al., 2005).
In summary, several variables were identified as playing a mediating or moderating role in the process under investigation. Specifically: a) the inclusion of the grandparent in the self mediated the relationship between: a.1) quality of contact with grandparents and explicit attitudes toward older adults and a.2) contact quantity with grandparents and explicit attitudes toward older people; b) intergroup anxiety mediated the relationship between explicit attitudes toward older adults and: b.1) quality of contact with grandparents and b.2) self-disclosure with grandparents; c) both accommodation and perspective taking mediated the relationship between the quality of contact with grandparents and explicit attitudes toward older adults; d) empathy mediated the relationship between self-disclosure with grandparents and explicit attitudes toward older adults; e) grandparent’s health moderated the relationship between contact quality with grandparents and individuals’ perceptions of their own aging; f) typicality moderated the relationship between: f.1) the quality of contact with grandparents and explicit attitudes toward older adults and f.2) contact frequency with grandparents and implicit attitudes toward older adults; g) group salience moderated the relationship between g.1) quality of contact with grandparents and explicit attitudes toward older people, mediated by frequency of contact with grandparents and g.2) contact quality with grandparents and explicit attitudes toward older adults, mediated by accommodation, intergroup anxiety, and perspective taking.
Discussion
This scoping literature review aimed to collect and summarize the current knowledge that jointly investigates ageism and the grandparent-grandchild relationship, specifically focusing on the associations between these aspects, and suggesting at the same time future directions to broaden this field of research.
To this aim, we conducted a structured searching process (PRISMA 2020 Statement; Page et al., 2021) and we eventually retained 18 articles. This number of studies, given the time range considered, is indicative of the under-development of this line of research. Our analysis, however, showed an increased scientific interest around this topic in recent years (10 out of 18 papers were published from 2020 to 2023). We can assume that this momentum is due to two main reasons. First, the substantial increase in the number of older people globally in the past decades and the high longevity that characterizes especially Western society have drawn scientific attention to this long and eventful phase of life, in which older people have to renegotiate their self-concept and their relationships with others. Second, the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in 2020 might have stressed the importance of addressing aging-related issues, especially ageism. Indeed, the stereotypes of the older person as dependent, fragile, and being a societal burden (Swift & Chasteen, 2021) were exacerbated by the vision of older individuals as the “at-risk outgroup” for the spread of the virus or by the belief that this population, considered expendable, required fewer resources (Newsham et al., 2021). This scenery reinforced the need for a better understanding of attitudes toward aging in order to reduce potential intergenerational conflict (Newsham et al., 2021).
With regard to the main findings on the association between ageism and the grandparent-grandchild relationship, numerous studies focused on contact characteristics. While consensus emerged on the benefits of contact quality with the grandparent, less consistent results referred to contact frequency. Indeed, contact quality is associated with the expression of more positive attitudes towards older people. Some results point to the importance of considering both contact features, showing that contact quality could be associated with attitudes under the condition of a high-frequency relationship and the importance of both contact aspects in promoting better attitudes toward older adults. Overall, these results are in line with the broader literature on intergenerational contact and indicate an association between more frequent contact with the grandparent and a lower level of ageism (e.g., Bellingtier et al., 2022; Liao et al., 2023; Silverstein & Parrott, 1997). However, Pettigrew (1998), revising Allport’s contact hypothesis (1954), stressed the importance of positive and close contact (i.e., a contact of quality) to facilitate higher extensive and repeated contact between them and promote friendship between groups. In fact, the present review shows that contact quality with the grandparent seems to be more related, as compared to contact frequency per se, to the reduction of ageism toward older individuals (e.g., Abrams et al., 2008; Liao et al., 2023).
The second set of studies focuses on self-disclosure in the grandparent-grandchild relationship (Omarzu, 2000). These studies show that greater sharing of personal information with the grandparent is associated with more positive attitudes towards older people, by facilitating a more heterogeneous and individualized understanding of older adults. Indeed, literature on self-disclosure reveals that this process can reduce the perception of the outgroup as threatening and encourage individualization and familiarity (Miller, 2002). Moreover, self-disclosure decreases the salience of stereotypes related to the outgroup (Krueger & Rothbart, 1988; Wilder, 1978). Lastly, self-disclosure reduces negative inter-group bias (Laurenceau et al., 1998) and fosters intimacy and mutual trust between different groups (Steel, 1991; Worthy et al., 1969). In light of the positive implications of self-disclosure on ageism, future research could further explore the role of this process, by investigating, for example, which kind of shared information between grandchildren and grandparents could improve better attitudes toward older people and the aging process.
Lastly, this review highlights the importance of several interpersonal processes - accommodation, perspective taking, empathy, inclusion of the other in the self and interaction anxiety - that are associated with explicit attitudes toward older adults, and they also appear to be mediating mechanisms in the relationship between contact characteristics and attitudes toward older adults. These findings align with broader theoretical frameworks in intergroup contact research. For instance, the mediational role of accommodation in the context of ageism confirms previous theoretical work on intergenerational communication (e.g., Coupland et al., 1988a). Given that interactions with grandparents often represent young people's primary context for age-related accommodation, future research could more deeply explore this relatively under-investigated aspect of grandparent-grandchild communication. The identified cognitive interpersonal processes (empathy, perspective taking, and inclusion of the other in the self) appear to work in concert to explain how positive contact experiences translate into improved attitudes toward older adults as a group. Moreover, the buffering effect of close relationships on interaction anxiety (Cohen et al., 1986) suggests that positive grandparent-grandchild relationships might help reduce anxiety in encounters with other older adults more generally (Paolini et al., 2004). Several moderating factors are also identified in the relationship between contact and attitudes toward older adults, including typicality and group salience. Indeed, when individuals clearly recognize that a person belongs to an outgroup, positive interactions with that person are more likely to extend to improved attitudes toward the entire outgroup (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Furthermore, findings indicate that the grandparent’s health condition could moderate the relationship between the quality of contact and individuals’ perceptions of their own aging so that positive contact does not result in positive perceptions of one’s own aging if the grandparent is ill (Hoffmann & Kornadt, 2022).
In sum, research on ageism and the grandparent-grandchild relationship has shown the potential role of this relationship in the reduction of ageism, while also delving into a potential explanatory mechanism of this interpersonal contact. Future research should further examine this link, by adopting a contextual approach and testing the role of possible moderators of the investigated associations. One such moderator could be the health of the grandparent as well as the role of (secondary) caregiver that grandchildren may play when a grandparent is ill (e.g., Donato et al., 2024). Caregiver burden in fact may counteract the benefits of contact with the grandparent or the grandparent’s illness may reduce the quality of it, for example, by interfering with effective communication.
Limitations and Future Directions
A notable limitation of this field of research emerges from our review: the relatively small number of studies (N = 18) meeting our inclusion criteria suggests that the relationship between ageism and grandparent-grandchild interactions remains understudied, despite its potential significance for understanding and reducing age-based prejudice. Moreover, a considerable portion of the selected studies employed qualitative methodologies, which, while valuable for providing rich, detailed insights into these relationships, limit our ability to draw generalizable conclusions or establish causal relationships.
Concerning the studies that were considered in this scoping literature review, they are not exempt from methodological limitations. First, most of the studies explored the effect of the grandparent-grandchild relationship on ageism when this contact was positive, nourishing the idea that this kind of contact is generally positive. However, we acknowledge that this kind of contact may not only be positive. Indeed, grandchildren may also feel uncomfortable around their grandparents or perceive a sense of moral obligation to stay with them. Although we identified some studies that highlight the negative aspects of this relation (Kim et al., 2020; Smith & Charlton, 2020), we recognise that no study was directly aimed at testing the effect of negative grandparent-grandchild relationship on ageism attitudes. Therefore, future studies should address this limitation to avoid over generalizability of the positive effect of this kind of relationship due solely to the structural bias of having explored only positive grandparent-grandchild relationships. Moreover, most of the informants were young adults (often students) and adults, while only a few studies interviewed older informants. Even though understanding the determinants of ageism in younger people has great potential, in that reducing ageism in these age cohorts is likely to reduce the negative effects that ageism has both on the ageism target (i.e., older adults) and on those expressing ageism (i.e., younger adults; Chang et al., 2020; Popham et al., 2011), future studies should include the perspective of older participants. Furthermore, in almost all the examined studies, most of the informants were female. Thus, future studies should use more homogeneous samples, with respect to the participants' gender. Moreover, the most widely used measure in these studies was the semantic differential scale. Its structure could mainly provide an indication of people’s attitudes and stereotypes toward older adults. So, future research could make use of measures that have been less used so far but which may be more informative. Most studies addressing mediational models were based on cross-sectional data, which prevented causal interpretation. In fact, although a-temporal mediation with correlational data can provide value for future research when its rationale is strongly rooted in previous evidence, it cannot establish the specific sequential process among variables (Winer et al., 2016). Future research would benefit from more quantitative studies with larger samples and longitudinal designs to better understand the temporal dynamics of how grandparent-grandchild relationships influence ageist attitudes over time. Additionally, experimental studies could help isolate specific mechanisms through which these relationships affect age-related attitudes and stereotypes. The field would also benefit from more cross-cultural studies, as most of the current research has been conducted in Western contexts, potentially limiting our understanding of how these relationships function in different cultural settings where intergenerational relationships may hold different meanings and significance.
Concluding Remarks
Overall, the grandparent-grandchild relationship appears to have a promising role in the prevention of ageism, which is associated with a plethora of negative consequences for older adults (e.g., depression symptoms, cognitive impairment, physical illnesses, more negative perception of one’s aging process; Chang et al., 2020). Understanding the correlates and determinants of such a form of prejudice is necessary to inform initiatives and interventions aimed to reduce it. To this aim, sustaining the grandparent-grandchild relationship seems an easy and effective way to promote intergenerational contact and a positive representation of older individuals (Marques et al., 2020). Indeed, most of the contact between these two generations (young and older people) occurs in the family, and this contact is generally more satisfying than that with general older adults (Ng et al., 1997). We hope that the present scoping literature review will contribute to encouraging and guiding future research on this promising line of investigation and intervention.