Notice bibliographique
Résumé
"The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of ageism. Ageism occurs when demeaning attitudes are directed toward individuals in a certain age group. Several theories have been postulated as to why ageism towards older adults occurs, such as contact theory (i.e., the quantity and quality of contact with older adults), terror management theory (i.e., anxiety and fear of mortality), and modernization theory (i.e., a belief that the skills of older adults are obsolete). Research in this area has selectively tested different theories of ageism; however, these studies have failed to examine multiple theories within one model. The current study examined contact theory, terror management theory, and modernization theory with respect to ageism. We examined survey data from 291 undergraduate students at a small university in Atlantic Canada. The survey was conducted online. Demographic characteristics, contact with grandparents and non-related older adults, and quality of interactions were measured using self-generated questionnaires. In addition, measures of personality, gratitude, ageing anxiety, and fear of death were administered. Also, older adults’ knowledge, burden/contributions to family/society, and attitudes toward the elderly were measured. A hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was conducted predicting ageist attitudes. The overall model was statistically significant and accounted for 63% of the variance. Both age and gender were found to be significant predictors; younger adults and men had higher scores on ageism. As well, participants who reported lower quality of contact with grandparents during childhood, and lower scores on their current quality of contact with older adults were more likely to endorse ageist attitudes. Of the five personality factors, lower scores on Agreeableness were a significant predictor. Finally, anxiety towards ageing (measuring terror management theory) and perceiving older adults as a burden (measuring modernization theory) predicted ageism. According to these findings, all ageism theories had an impact on ageist attitudes, but modernization theory contributed the most unique variance to the model. Overall, further research should continue to investigate the multidimensional construct of ageism."
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».