Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2010, 51, 23–30

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00738.x

Development and Aging Age discrimination in the workplace: Validation of the Nordic Age Discrimination Scale (NADS) TRUDE FURUNES and REIDAR J. MYKLETUN Norwegian School of Hotel Management, University of Stavanger, Norway

Furunes, T. & Mykletun, R. J. (2010). Age discrimination in the workplace: Validation of the Nordic Age Discrimination Scale (NADS). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 23–30. Due to population ageing, older workers will make up a larger proportion of the workforce. However, recent reports show an increase in perceived age discrimination among older employees. Previous research found that age discrimination may result in negative feelings, such as uselessness, powerlessness and lower self-esteem. This study develops and validates a scale for monitoring age discrimination in the workplace. The validation study draws on three datasets, from Norway, Sweden and Finland respectively. The study provides a psychometric contribution to the study of the behavioral component of ageism. Key words: Nordic Age Discrimination Scale, older workers, validation, ageism, ageing, NADS. Trude Furunes, University of Stavanger – Norwegian School of Hotel Management, 4036 Stavanger, Stavanger 4036, Norway. Tel: +4751833762; fax: +4751833750; e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION Evidence show that age discrimination is a common problem in working life. It applies at different stages in the processes from recruitment and development of workforce (March & Sahin-Dikmen, 2003; Parkins, Fishbein, and Ritchey, 2006; Taylor & Urwin, 2001; Taylor & Walker, 1998; Urwin, 2006; Virjo, 2004) to retention and exit (Furunes, Solem & Mykletun, 2008; Sullivan & Duplaga, 1997). Age discrimination may also be institutionalized in the sense of early retirement schemes and upper age limits (Townsend, 1986). With the ongoing demographic changes, the aging of the European workforce (Griffiths, 1997, 2007; Rupp, Vodanovich & Crede´, 2006), and the indications that age discrimination can lead to feelings of uselessness, powerlessness, and lower self-esteem (Butler, 1969; Cowgill, 1974; Hassell & Perrewe, 1993), the age discrimination problem at work may be likely to increase in actual numbers (Rupp et al., 2006). Countries differ with respect to growing or declining prevalence. Moreover, different studies have shown different results regarding the prevalence of discrimination of the older workers in the workplace and to our knowledge no standard validated scale has yet been published to measure the perceived frequencies of this problem. The prevalence ranges from 1 to 71% of the workforce (Dalen, 2008b; March & Sahin-Dikmen, 2003). Consequently there is a need for a standard scale that is validated for this purpose (Ilmarinen, 2006), and this task is the purpose of the present study. The scale should address the key work and task areas where age discrimination is found to take place in order to be a valid measure of the problem. Age discrimination is a part of the broader concept of ageism (Butler, 1969; Bytheway, 1995; Bytheway & Johnson, 1990; Nelson, 2002), defined as ‘‘prejudice by one age group

toward other age groups’’ (Butler, 1969, p. 243). Discrimination may take many forms, hence EU legislation makes a distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, where direct age discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favorably than another in a comparable situation because of his or her age. Indirect age discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would disadvantage people on the grounds of age unless the practice can be objectively justified by a legitimate aim (O’Cinneide, 2005). In constructing a scale for measuring age discrimination it is important to address both direct and indirect forms. Early definitions of ageism (e.g. Butler, 1969) focused on its similarities to sexism and racism, because all these concepts are rooted in stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and minority group status. Later studies have pointed out a need for distinguishing ageism from sexism and racism (Bytheway & Johnson, 1990), as all individuals will grow older and end up in the category being discriminated against. Even though the term ageism may include discrimination due to age against all age groups in the workplace, the most common use of the term is as a label for age discrimination against the elderly (Palmore, 2005), as in this paper. However, there might also be a need for studies of age discrimination of younger workers, and we are not aware of published studies in this field. In the workplace, ageism may be manifested as prejudice (biased attitudes), discriminatory practice and institutional habits. Biased attitudes may, but do not necessarily, lead to discrimination. Still, discrimination can take place even though attitudes are nuanced, as opposed to purely negative (Solem, 2001). These aspects of age discrimination in the workplace will manifest themselves in different ways, both as implicit and explicit discriminatory practices. According to Binstock (1983), ageism is

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.

24 T. Furunes and R. J. Mykletun not a reflection of purely negative attitudes. For instance in the case of compassionate ageism, positive feelings of compassion may result in overly considerate practice and paternalism, protecting older workers from change, learning and challenges (Solem, 2001), which are forms of indirect ageism. Compassionate ageism may also result in a stigma, conveying the meaning that older workers are weaker and less competent and must be cared for in special ways (Boerlijst, Munnichs & Van der Heiden, 1998).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH MEASURING AGE DISCRIMINATION AT THE WORKPLACE Due to the complexity of the concept, the prevalence of age discrimination is difficult to assess, and varies according to how questions are formulated. By the end of 2006, all EU countries were obliged to implement legislation to protect from discrimination on the basis of nationality, gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. A Euro barometer from 2003 showed that for EU citizens, age was the most-reported reason for discrimination experience (March & Sahin-Dikmen, 2003). In this survey, as many as 71% of the respondents said that individuals past 50 years of age would have reduced possibilities of getting employment, vocational training, and promotion. Compared to EU countries, Norway pioneered legislation in this area by enacting age discrimination paragraphs in the Working Environment Act of 1 May 2004. However, in 2008, 81% of managers still reported that consequences of this Act are not discussed in the organization (Dalen, 2008a). Ageism in general has been an issue for discussion in Norwegian working life for some years. Public polls from 2003–7 show that as many as around 20% of the working population have experienced that work-related age discrimination takes place very often, often, or now and then. However, when asking for unique events like age discrimination related to the introduction of new technologies, the figures escalate to 57% (Dalen, 2008a). Looking at previous research and case reports, age discrimination seems to take place in at least six different human resource areas at the workplace. Direct discrimination takes place when older workers are passed over in recruitment to jobs, i.e. not being considered for job interview because of age. For the already employed, older workers are exposed to risk for discrimination in relation to promotion (Furunes et al., 2008), competence development through on the job training and external courses (Schøne, 1996; Taylor & Urwin, 2001), and training for new technology (Furunes, Mykletun & Solem, 2006; Mykletun, Mykletun & Solem, 2000). Studies show that older workers less often are offered training, their participation rates in training is lower, and they also less frequently ask for training as compared to the younger workforces (Schøne, 1996; Taylor & Urwin, 2001). Taylor and Urwin (2001) claim that the lower incidence of training among the older workers may be attributed to employers’ decision-making, reflecting that their shorter ‘‘rest careers’’ should give less return on

Scand J Psychol 51 (2010)

investment compared to younger colleagues (Finkelstein & Burke, 1998); and thus indicating that the employers discriminate against the older workers. Furthermore, older workers are not invited to development appraisals, and they experience less wage increase (Brooke, 2003). Some case studies show that older workers are ‘‘spared the trouble’’ of taking part in change processes, which is an indirect act of age discrimination.

Correlates of age discrimination as measures of construct validity Garstka, Schmitt, Branscombe and Hummert (2004) measured perceived age discrimination in society, but none of the items are specifically related to working life. In their study, they found age discrimination to be negatively related to psychological well-being, particularly referring to overall life satisfaction. However, Garstka et al. (2004) do not specify the items used to measure psychological well-being, but report self-esteem and life satisfaction as measures. These findings are in line with the above-reported feelings of uselessness, powerlessness, and lower self-esteem that are more often found among workers that perceive age discrimination (Butler, 1969; Cowgill, 1974; Hassell & Perrewe, 1993). Levy (1996, 2000) and Levy, Ashman and Dior (1999) found relationships between workplace discrimination and lower self-efficacy, decreased performance, and cardiovascular stress among older workers. Moreover, decreased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement have also been shown to associate with workplace age discrimination (Orpen, 1995). Older workers are at risk of receiving lower performance scores than deserved when subjective supervisor ratings are applied (Laczko & Philipson, 1991; Waldman & Avolio, 1986). Rupp et al. (2006) found that increasing age of the workers was associated with increased risk for severe negative recommendations (transfer, request for resignation, demotion) from their managers. The risk increased when the manager held negative attitudes towards ageing workers in general. A main reason to this is that older workers’ performance errors are likely to be viewed as a result of stable factors, while this was unlikely to be the case for younger workers. Taken together, the above research gives some evidence for expecting that exposure to workplace age discrimination may be detrimental to quality of life and ruin the feelings of being integrated into a good work environment. Although not observed by previous research, one should expect that age discrimination would impair the relationship between the workforce and the manager, as the latter may be the one triggering or enacting the discriminative acts. To the extent that the co-workers are part of the age discrimination processes, either by passively observing it or even actively contributing to such negative acts, the victim should also experience the social environment as more hostile than supportive. Inevitably, being discriminated at through overt or covert behavior of colleagues and superiors frustrates basic needs for appreciation and social

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Age discrimination in the workplace

Scand J Psychol 51 (2010)

connectedness and inclusion in groups with significant others, and also ruins relationships that might otherwise have provided social support. As a consequence age discrimination should be expected to evoke a state of energy depletion, psychological stress, burnout or depressive symptoms, health problems, and alienation, following the traditional and extensive research relating workload, demand, stressors, and hassles to health problems (Cox & Griffiths, 1995; de Jonge & Dormann, 2006; Dewe, 1992; Martin, 1997; Smith & Carayon, 1996). These possible negative consequences of exposure to age discrimination becomes even more crystallized when compared to the opposite state of engagement (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte & Lens, 2008), defined by vigor (e.g. high levels of mental energy), dedication (e.g. strong involvement and feelings of pride), and absorption in work (see also Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter & Taris, 2008). Van den Broeck et al. (2008) explain engagement as a function of satisfying basic needs in accordance to the Self-Determination Theory, maintaining that satisfaction of basic psychological needs is the fundamental requirement for optimal functioning, and that this also applies at work. Thus, employees surrounded by resourceful job characteristics should experience autonomy, interpersonal connectedness and competence, which in turn should have health-enhancing impacts (Luthans, 2002; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Taris, Cox & Tisserand, 2008), characterized by ‘‘… the positive, fulfilling, affective-emotional state of work-wellbeing that is characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption’’ (Bakker et al., 2008, p. 188). Discrimination is likely to impair interpersonal connectedness and reduce the sense of competence. Consequently it may be argued that being discriminated at work due to age is an experience that ruins the options of having at least two groups of basic needs satisfied in relation to work; instead discrimination may impose a feeling of being threatened and excluded, as opposite to engaged, due to attributes that cannot be changed. These losses of support and connectedness and threats to self-esteem may be expected to generalize to the perception of the working environment in general. Granted the validity of this reasoning and for the purpose of this study we expect a scale that, with sufficient reliability and consistency across samples, intends to measure workplace age discrimination to be correlated to an extensive list of measures, supporting the construct validity of the age discrimination concept and the related scale. First, we will expect discrimination to correlate negatively to psychological states like selfefficacy, estimates of own abilities to work, work motivation, organizational commitment and work and life satisfaction; and positively to feelings of stress. Second, we expect age discrimination to correlate negatively to social factors at work, including social climate, support from co-workers, and support from superiors. Third, we should expect that those exposed to age discrimination would suffer from health impairments and thus age discrimination should correlate positively to rate of sick leave. To assess the criterion validity of the age discrimination concept and scale may be difficult as age discrimination is

25

illegal; however, within the context of this study one might expect that perceptions of age inequalities in the way workforce are treated should be a relevant criterion, and positive correlations between the two should be demonstrated. Likewise, age discrimination should correlate positively to being exposed to bullying at the workplace. Bullying and age-related unequal treatment of workforce are hence used to support the criterion validity of the age discrimination construct and scale.

Aim of the paper The main aim of this paper is to construct a scale for measuring work-related discrimination of older workers. Hence, a scale covering key work tasks and areas where age discrimination might take place has here been constructed and tested for reliability (internal consistency) and consistency across subsamples. If valid, this measure should have the expected correlations to individual psychological scales, social factors at work, and sickness leave, as argued above. Therefore, correlation analyses have been computed to test relationships with variables expected to correlate with the age discrimination scale. A random sample of teachers from Finland, Sweden and Norway has supplied data for this purpose.

METHOD Sample Data were collected using self-report questionnaires, sent to a random sample of 2,653 primary and secondary school teachers employed in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Sampling was done by the teachers’ unions in each country, and the data were collected simultaneously. Because the developed scale aims at measuring age discrimination at work its development and validation were based on a sample of workers in one occupational area. The total dataset consists of 1,001 respondents (38% response rate), with subsamples from Norway (409 respondents), Sweden (201 respondents) and Finland (391 respondents) respectively. The size of the sample was considered sufficient to evaluate feasibility and pertinence of the questionnaire and to determine whether the items were clearly understood by the respondents, as were the most important aims of the study. The overall response rate was, however, fairly low. This was most likely caused by the sampling technique, which did not allow for follow-up of non-respondents.

Instrument The Nordic Age Discrimination scale (NADS) consists of six items, which are designed to reflect age discrimination that takes place in the workplace (Table 1). One item was formulated for each of the following aspects: (1) promotion, (2) training, (3) development, (4) development appraisals, (5) wage increase, and (6) change processes. These items are based on previous research indicating that age discrimination in the workplace takes place in the respective areas as argued in the introduction. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale to what degree they agree with each item, 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree. Although an integrated part of the new QPS-Nordic ADW (Lindstro¨m et al., 2008; Pahkin et al., 2008) the scale may be used independently from the larger questionnaire, which also contained the other measures applied in the validation of the NADS (see also Wa¨nnstro¨m, 2008).

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

26 T. Furunes and R. J. Mykletun

Scand J Psychol 51 (2010)

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the NADS, factor loadings for subsamples and total sample, and for men and women split NADS item

Norway

Sweden

Finland

Total sample

Men

Women

1 Elderly workers are passed over ⁄ left out in cases of promotion or internal recruitment 2 Elderly workers do not have equal opportunities for training during work time 3 Younger workers are preferred when new equipments, activities or working methods are introduced 4 Elderly workers less often take part in development appraisals with their superior than younger workers 5 Elderly workers have less wage increase than younger workers 6 Elderly workers are not expected to take part in change processes and new working methods to the same degree as their younger peers Eigenvalue Explained variance

0.82

0.67

0.73

0.76

0.81

0.73

0.86

0.71

0.82

0.81

0.79

0.81

0.78

0.77

0.75

0.77

0.80

0.75

0.85

0.63

0.64

0.74

0.78

0.72

0.56

0.52

0.43

0.51

0.51

0.50

0.47

0.69

0.59

0.55

0.60

0.52

3.7 61%

3.2 54%

3.2 54%

3.4 57%

3.6 60%

3.3 55%

Note: Extraction method: Maximal Likelihood, only one factor was extracted.

Criterion validity The criterion validity of the NADS was assessed by two single items measuring (a) perceived age inequalities in the work place: ‘Have you noticed any inequalities in how older and younger are treated at your workplace?’ Response alternatives were: (1) very seldom or never; (2) rather seldom; (3) sometimes; (4) rather often; and (5) very often or always; (Pahkin, 2008), and (b) ‘Have you been subjected to bullying or harassment at the workplace during the last six months?’ Response alternatives were (1) no; and (2) yes (Dallner et al., 2000). The expectation was that these items correlated positively with age discrimination.

Construct validity Relations between the NADS and the expected correlates would vote for the construct validity of the NADS. These correlations were tested towards scales and single items from the QPS-Nordic ADW (Lindstro¨m et al., 2008; Pahkin et al., 2008) as follows: The psychological states. The self-efficacy scale consisted of four items (a = 0.80; Dallner et al., 2000; Pahkin et al., 2008). Subjective estimates of own abilities to work was tested by a four item scale (a = 0.80; Pahkin, 2008), which is a short version of the full WAI developed by Ilmarinen, Tuomi and Klockars (1997). Work ability is a measure that correlates with self efficacy (r = 0.50***); hence it partly reflects the individual’s psychological state. Work motivation was measured by a four items scale (a = 0.61; Pahkin, 2008) developed by Bjo¨rklund (2001). Organizational commitment was measured by a three item scale (a = 0.85; Bjo¨rklund, 2008; Pahkin, 2008). Job and life satisfaction was assessed by a three-item scale (a = 0.68; Pahkin, 2008). As high scores indicate the preferred condition, these scales are all expected to correlate negatively to the age discrimination scale. Stress was measured with one item: ‘‘Stress means the situation when a person feels tense, restless, nervous or anxious, or is unable to sleep at night because his or her mind is troubled all the time. Do you feel that kind of work-related stress these days?’’ (Dallner et al., 2000). Responses were (1) not at all; (2) only a little; (3) to some extent; (4) rather much; and (5) very much, hence a positive correlation is expected between the stress score and the age discrimination scale.

Social factors at work. The social climate scale contained three items (a = 0.77; Bjo¨rklund, 2008; Pahkin, 2008); support from co-workers was assessed by a three-item scale (a = 0.82 in Bjo¨rklund, 2008; and 0.84 in Pahkin, 2008), and support from superior by a threeitem scale (a = 0.85 in Bjo¨rklund, 2008; and 0.91 in Pahkin, 2008). For these scales, high score means good climate or high support respectively, and negative correlations to the age discrimination scale are expected.

Sick leave as indicator of illness Health impairments were estimated with number of self-reported sick leave days throughout the previous 12 months, and a positive correlation to age discrimination was expected.

Data analyses The nature of the data opens for validation of the NADS in three different languages; Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish. Subsamples can also be compared to the total dataset, in order to test validity across subsamples. In validating the scale, data analyses are run for the total sample, as well as separate analyses for the country specific subsamples. Analyses run on all samples include confirmatory factor analyses (Maximal Likelihood), reliability tests (Cronbach’s Alpha), and frequencies (mean, SD, range). Robustness is tested by running split cases by subsamples (country) and gender. Testing of criterion and construct validity is done by correlation analyses.

RESULTS Factor structure of the NADS For all samples, the six items in the Nordic Age Discrimination scale loaded on one factor (factor 1), r = 0.57–0.87 (Table 1). Confirmatory factor analyses (Maximal Likelihood)

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Age discrimination in the workplace

Scand J Psychol 51 (2010)

were run separately for each sub-scale, with the number of factors predefined by Eigenvalues ‡ 1.00, gave single-factor solutions in the total samples and in all subsamples. In order to test the stability of the factor structure obtained, the analyses were repeated according to gender split of the sample (Table 1). The Eigenvalue and explained variance were slightly higher in the Norwegian sample, and for men, than the average.

Internal consistency It has been recommended that the internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, should be at least 0.60 for a selfreport instrument and at least 0.80 when used as a screening instrument (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). In this study the Cronbach alpha for the NADS ranged between 0.82 and 0.87 (Table 2). The stability of the findings on the internal consistency of the NADS across three samples supported the robustness of the scale. Average score (M) for the Swedish subsample was somewhat lower than the other, but the difference is not significant. As the median also was lower, this difference may reflect differences in actual levels of age discrimination, hence does not necessarily affect the internal consistency of the NADS. Robustness of the NADS was also tested by running the same analyses with gender split cases (Table 3). When running analyses with gender split (Table 3), female ratings are significantly lower than male ratings. This indicates that male respondents report significantly higher levels of age discrimination, across samples.

Criterion validity The NADS correlated positively (r = 0.48, p < 0.001) to the item used for estimating criterion validity, for example the level of experienced age inequalities in the workplace. Respondents who reported that older and younger workers are treated differently also reported higher levels of age discrimination. Experienced harassment and bullying was also positively correlated with age discrimination (r = 0.23, p < 0.01). These results supported the criterion validity of the age discrimination concept and scale.

27

Table 2. Mean values, median, SD, range, and Cronbach’s alpha for subsamples and total sample

Mean* Median SD Range Cronbach’s alpha Skewness St. E. of skewness

Norway (n = 409)

Sweden (n = 201)

Finland (n = 391)

Total sample (N = 1001)

2.23 2.00 0.95 1–5 0.87 0.61 0.12

1.96 1.80 0.81 1–5 0.82 0.82 0.18

2.10 2.00 0.78 1–5 0.82 0.77 0.13

2.13 2.00 0.87 1–5 0.86 0.73 0.08

*Differences between countries (subsamples) are not significant.

Construct validity Construct validity was assessed by correlating the age discrimination scale to three dimensions, namely psychological states related to work, social work environment, and indicators of health impairments. Respondents who reported higher levels of age discrimination also reported lower levels on all scales included among the work-related psychological states, except stress which was higher among those feeling discriminated against. This applied to self efficacy (r = )0.15, p = 0.001); work ability (r = )0.24, p = 0.001), work motivation (r = )0.15, p = 0.001), organizational commitment (r = )0.35, p = 0.001), and job and life satisfaction (r = )0.34, p = 0.001). Age discrimination was positively correlated to levels of stress (r = 0.14, p = 0.001). As for the social work environment, the age discrimination scale correlated negatively with the three indicators, namely social climate (r = )0.32, p < 0.001), co-worker support (r = )0.33, p < 0.001), and support from superior (r = )0.39, p < 0.001). Thus, feeling exposed to age discrimination was related to low quality of the social relationships at work. Finally, the indicator of health impairments, days of sick leave, was positive correlated to feelings of age discrimination (r = 0.11, p < 0.01), meaning that sick leave was higher among those who felt discriminated against. All the expected correlations were significant and in the directions that were set a priori, indicating that the age discrimination scale has demonstrated construct validity.

Table 3. Mean values, median, SD, range, and Cronbach’s alpha for subsamples and total sample for men and women split cases Norway

Mean* Median SD Range Cronbach’s alpha Skewness St. E. of skewness

Sweden

Finland

Total sample

Male (n = 141)

Female (n = 260)

Male (n = 94)

Female (n = 97)

Male (n = 90)

Female (n = 285)

Male (n = 325)

Female (n = 642)

2.38 2.33 1.00 1–5 0.88 0.43 0.20

2.15 2.00 0.91 1–5 0.85 0.68 0.15

2.08 2.00 0.84 1–5 0.82 0.51 0.25

1.84 1.66 0.77 1–5 0.81 10.19 0.25

2.22 2.16 0.85 1–5 0.85 0.96 0.25

2.06 2.00 0.75 1–5 0.80 0.63 0.14

2.24 2.17 0.92 1–5 0.86 0.62 0.13

2.06 2.06 0.82 1–5 0.83 0.76 0.09

*Differences between countries are not significant, but differences between male and female are significantly different across all samples.  2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

28 T. Furunes and R. J. Mykletun DISCUSSION This validation study supported the proposed NADS. Hence, the study provides a psychometric contribution to the scientific study of the behavioral component of ageism. The scale proved to be a satisfactory instrument for measuring age discrimination in the workplace according to the following criteria: The 6 items, covering the areas of work-related age discrimination in (1) promotion, (2) training, (3) development, (4) development appraisals, (5) wage increase, and (6) change processes loaded on a one-factor solution for the total sample and for subsamples. Homogeneity in factor structure was illustrated across three subsamples, validating the NADS for Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish respectively. Minor variations across the subsamples are likely to be a reflection of differences in perceived age discrimination across the three countries. However, further data collection is needed to confirm this hypothesis as the smallest sample, Sweden, had the lowest reported age discrimination. A second explanation may be found in the high number of non-responses in Sweden. The internal consistency of the NADS was found to be satisfactory both in the total sample and in the subsamples. The criterion validity was acceptable when applying age inequalities and exposure to bullying and harassment as criteria. Construct validity was supported through correlations for psychological state measures and job and life satisfaction in accordance with previous research (Butler, 1969; Cowgill, 1974; Hassell & Perrewe, 1993; Laczko & Philipson, 1991; Levy, 1996, 2000; Levy et al., 1999; Orpen, 1995; Rupp et al., 2006; Waldman & Avolio, 1986). Moreover, the age discrimination scale was positively correlated to stress and indicators of health impairments as expected from the theoretical base of the study. Some of these correlations reflect relationships to the same types of variables as have been shown before. Others are deferred from previous research, and their correlations to age discrimination were displayed here for the first time. This applied to age discrimination and bullying, inequality of work, feeling of stress, work ability, support from colleagues, and support from superior, and finally also sick leave. As these variables reflect measures used in previous research as outlined in the theory review section, they also enable this study to contribute with new findings to the theory of age discrimination at the workplace. Some limitations apply to the conclusions drawn from this study. As discrimination at work is illegal, it may be questioned whether the responses to the NADS might be influenced by social desirability. In this respect, measurements of discrimination face the same challenges as measurements of mobbing and harassment. One expectation would be that false responses should be less likely to occur when it is impossible to trace the identity of the respondent (e.g. Neuman, 2003), as is the case in the present study. Moreover, responses are less likely to be confounded by social desirability as this study focused on how the respondents experienced exposure to discrimination as opposed to asking them about conducting such negative

Scand J Psychol 51 (2010)

acts in person. A second question relates to the moderate response rates reported here, which may have impacted the accuracy of the prevalence of harassment; however, it should most likely not impact the internal consistency and relationships between experienced discrimination and the criterion and construct variables.

Further research This study validates the Nordic Age Discrimination Scale in Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish. In order to extend the use of the scale, validations in other languages are needed. The study attempts to indicate a few areas, which are correlated to employees’ perception of age discrimination, such as psychological well-being, social work environment, and work-related outcomes. Although the expected results are found, the study does not demonstrate cause and effects, for which purpose a longitudinal and preferably prospective study should be conducted. Longitudinal studies will also make it possible to study test-retest reliability. Based on the present study it is not possible to decide whether negative affect, such as personality traits or psychopathology, may cause an inclination to perceive a work environment as ageist. Hence there is need for new studies including scales to measure for instance anxiety and depression, neuroticism and negative affectivity. Additional work is needed to assess the scale’s sensitivity to changing samples in different occupations, as teachers might be a special case in this respect. The Nordic Council of Ministers financially supported this study. The authors are also gratefully acknowledging the financial support from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV-FARVE) and SSP (Centre for Senior Policy).

REFERENCES Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P. & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22(3), 187–200. Binstock, R. H. (1983). The aged as scapegoat. The Gerontologist, 23(2), 136–143. Bjo¨rklund, C. (2001). Work motivation – Its determinants and outcomes. PhD thesis, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm. Bjo¨rklund, C. (2008). Testing the existing QPSNordic data. in K. Lindstro¨m, C. Bjo¨rklund, R.J. Mykletun, G. Gaard, T. Furunes & K. Pahkin (Eds.), Nordic questionnaire for monitoring the age diverse workforce. Review report of QPS Nordic-ADW (Vol. TemaNord 2008:505, pp. 29–38). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Boerlijst, J. G., Munnichs, J. M. A. & Van der Heiden, B. I. J. M. (1998). The ‘‘older worker’’ in the organization. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry & C. J. D. Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2). East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd. Brooke, L. (2003). Human resource costs and benefits of maintaining a mature-age workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 24(3), 160–283. Butler, R. N. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9, 243–246. Bytheway, B. (1995). Ageism. Buckingham: Open University Press.

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Age discrimination in the workplace

Scand J Psychol 51 (2010) Bytheway, B. & Johnson, J. (1990). On defining ageism. Critical Social policy, 10(2), 27–39. Cowgill, D. I. (1974). The ageing of population and societies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 415, 1–18. Cox, T. & Griffiths, A. (1995). The nature and measurement of work stress. Theory and practice. In J. R. Wilson & E. N. Corlett (Eds.), The evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology (pp. 553–572). London: Taylor & Francis. Dalen, E. (2008a). Norsk Seniorpolitisk Barometer: Ledere i arbeidslivet [Norwegian Age Management Barometer] (27 September). Oslo: Synovate. Dalen, E. (2008b). Norsk Seniorpolitisk Barometer: Yrkesaktiv befolkning. Oslo: Synovate. Dallner, M., Elo, A.-L., Gamberale, F., Hottinen, V., Knardahl, S., Lindstro¨m, K., et al. (2000). Validation of the General Nordic Questionnaire (QPSNordic) for psychological and social factors at work. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. de Jonge, J. & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple match principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1359–1379. Dewe, P. (1992). Applying the concept of appraisal to work stressors: Some exploratory analyses. Human Relations, 45(2), 143–164. Finkelstein, L. M. & Burke, M. J. (1998). Age stereotyping at work: The role of rater and contextual factors on evaluations of job applicants. Journal of General Psychology, 125, 317–345. Furunes, T., Mykletun, R. J. & Solem, P. E. (2006). Lederes holdninger til eldre arbeidstakere: Hovedrapport fra undersøkelse blant ledere i kommunal sektor og helseforetak [Managers’ attitudes towards older workers]. Stavanger ⁄ Oslo: KLP Pension Insurance Company, University of Stavanger and Norwegian Social Research. Furunes, T., Solem, P. E. & Mykletun, R. J. (2008). Age discrimination as a barrier to employment of older workers. Submitted for publication. Garstka, T. A., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R. & Hummert, M. L. (2004). How young and older adults differ in their responses to perceived age discrimination. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 326– 335. Griffiths, A. (1997). Aging, health and productivity: A challenge for the new millennium. Work and Stress, 11(3), 197–214. Griffiths, A. (2007). Healthy work for older workers: work design and management factors. In W. Loretto, S. Vickerstaff & P. White (Eds.), The future for older workers: New perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 121–138). Bristol: Policy Press. Hassell, B. L. & Perrewe, P. L. (1993). An examination of the relationship between older workers’ perceptions of age discrimination and employee psychological states. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(5), 109–120. Ilmarinen, J. (2006). Towards a longer worklife! Ageing and the quality of worklife in the European Union (Eng. version ed.). Jyva¨skyla¨: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. Ilmarinen, J., Tuomi, K. & Klockars, M. (1997). Changes in the work ability of active employees over an 11-year period. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 23(1), 49–57. Laczko, F. & Philipson, C. (1991). Changing work and retirement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Levy, B. R. (1996). Improving memory in old age by implicit self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1092–1107. Levy, B. R. (2000). Handwriting as a reflection of aging self-stereotypes. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 33, 81–94. Levy, B. R., Ashman, O. & Dior, I. (1999). Be or not to be. The effects of ageing stereotypes on the will to live. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 40, 409–420. Lindstro¨m, K., Bjo¨rklund, C., Mykletun, R. J., Furunes, T., Gard, G. & Pahkin, K. (2008). Nordic questionnaire for monitoring the age

29

diverse workforce: Review report of QPSNordic-ADW (No. TemaNord 2008:505). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695– 706. March, A. & Sahin-Dikmen, M. (2003). Discrimination in Europe. London: The European Opinion Research Group (EEIG). Martin, P. (1997). The sickening mind: Brain, behaviour, immunity and disease. London: Harper Collins. Mykletun, R. J., Mykletun, A. & Solem, P. E. (2000). Alder og arbeid i kommunesektoren. Ansattes planer om tidlig avgang til pensjon og uføretrygd. Stavanger: University of Stavanger, Norwegian School of Hotel Management. Nelson, T. D. (Ed.). (2002). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edn). New York: McGraw Hill. O’Cinneide, C. (2005). Age discrimination and European law (Thematic Report). Brussels: European Network of Legal Experts in the non-discrimination field. Orpen, C. (1995). The effects of perceived age discrimination on employee job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and job involvement. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 32(3–4), 55–56. Pahkin, K. (2008). Piloting the new QPSNordic-ADW Questionnaire. in K. Lindstro¨m, C. Bjo¨rklund, G. Gaard, T. Furunes & K. Pahkin (Eds.), Nordic questionnaire for monitoring the age diverse workforce. Review report of QPS Nordic-ADW (Vol. TemaNord 2008:505, pp. 38–44). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Pahkin, K., Bjo¨rklund, C., Mykletun, R. J., Furunes, T., Gard, G. & Lindstro¨m, K. (2008). User’s Guide for the QPSNordic-ADW: Nordic questionnaire for monitoring the age diverse workforce (No. TemaNord 2008:504). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Palmore, E. B. (2005). Definitions. In E. B. Palmore, L. Branch & D.K. Harris (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ageism (pp. 96–97). New York: Haworth Pastoral Press. Parkins, I. S., Fishbein, H. D. & Ritchey, N. P. (2006). The influence of personality on workplace bullying and discrimination. [Research]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2554–2577. Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J. & Crede´, M. (2006). Age bias in the workplace: The impact of ageism and causal attributions. [research]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1337–1364. Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. Schøne, P. (1996). Virksomhetsintern opplæring - hvem fa˚r opplæring, og hva er den verdt? Søkelys pa˚ arbeidsmarkedet, 13, 57–63. Smith, M. J. & Carayon, P. (1996). Work organisation, stress and cumulative trauma disorders. In S. D. M. S. L. Sauter (Ed.), Beyond biomechanics: Psychosocial aspects of musculoskeletal disorders in office work (pp. 23–42). London: Taylor & Francis. Solem, P. E. (2001). Diskriminering av eldre i arbeidslivet. Søkelys pa arbeidsmarkedet, 18, 93–99. Sullivan, S. E. & Duplaga, E. A. (1997). Recruiting and retaining older workers for the new millennium. [review article]. Business Horizons(November–December), 65–69. Taris, T., Cox, T. & Tisserand, M. (2008). Engagement at work: An emerging concept. Editorial. Work and Stress, 22(8), 185–186. Taylor, P. & Urwin, P. (2001). Age and participation in vocational education and training. Work, Employment and Society, 15(4), 763–779.

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

30 T. Furunes and R. J. Mykletun Taylor, P. & Walker, A. (1998). Policies and practices towards older workers: A framework for comparative research. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(3), 61–76. Townsend, P. (1986). Ageism and social policy. In C. P. A. Walker (Ed.), Ageing and social policy. A critical assessment. Aldershot: Gower. Urwin, P. (2006). Age discrimination: legislation and human capital accumulation. Employee Relations, 28(1), 87–97. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationship between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22(3), 277–294.

Scand J Psychol 51 (2010) Virjo, I. (2004). The ageing and the labour market in the Nordic Countries: A literature review. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere. Waldman, D. A. & Avolio, B. J. (1986). A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 33–38. Wa¨nnstro¨m, I. (2008). Assessment of psychological and social factors in the workplace. Doctoral dissertation. Karolinska Institute, Department of Clinical Neuroscience. Received 7 November 2008, accepted 17 March 2009

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.