The disproportionately high rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health complications and mortality among older adults prompted supportive public responses, such as special senior early shopping hours and penpal programs. Simultaneously, some older adults faced neglect and blatant displays of ageism (e.g., #BoomerRemover) and were considered the lowest priority to receive health care. This article examines positive and negative responses toward older adults in the United States during the pandemic and the consequences for older adults and society using data from the pandemic in the United States (and informed by data from other countries) as well as past theorizing and empirical research on views and treatment of older adults. Specifically, positive responses can reinforce the value of older adults, improve older adults' mental and physical health, reduce ageism, and improve intergenerational relations, whereas negative responses can have the opposite effects. However, positive responses (social distancing to protect older adults from COVID-19 infection) can inadvertently increase loneliness, depression, health problems, and negative stereotyping of older adults (e.g., helpless, weak). Pressing policy issues evident from the treatment of older adults during the pandemic include health care (triaging, elder abuse), employment (layoffs, retirement), and education about ageism, as well as the intersection of ageism with other forms of prejudice (e.g., racism) that cuts across these policies. Public Significance StatementThis article explores positive and negative responses toward older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and the expected short-and long-term consequences such as impacting beliefs about and treatment of older adults, intergenerational relations, and individuals' mental and physical health. This article discusses policy changes to health care (triaging, elder abuse), employment (layoffs, retirement), and education about ageism.

Almost 50 years ago, ageism (negative attitudes toward older adults) was introduced as a significant social issue. Since then, the worldwide population of adults ages 60 and over has rapidly become the fastest growing age group, making the study of ageism an even more pressing social issue. This review outlines three broad and intertwined themes as the field continues to develop a fuller understanding of ageism: studying both positive and negative aspects of ageism, taking a lifespan focus, and integrating the study of ageism with the study of aging. The review also focuses on several timely subthemes such as the need and benefits of expanding measures of ageism and intervening variables, expanding the diversity of study samples, expanding the research methodologies, and expanding the contexts under study toward greater cross‐cultural and within‐culture investigations. This review and the international, interdisciplinary research showcased in this special issue are intended to set the stage for the next wave of international research on ageism across the lifecycle and of effective interventions and public policies supporting older adults and positive intergenerational relations.

With a worldwide aging population and increasingly youth‐centered societies around the world, there are mounting concerns about how perceptions of age and aging may influence the workplace. Using an age diverse national sample of workers (n = 800) from a wide range of occupations and socioeconomic backgrounds in the United States, this study investigated understudied psychosocial factors (age identity, aging anxiety, perceived age discrimination, perceived social support at work, and work centrality) that may buffer or hinder job satisfaction, commitment, and engagement. Identity variables, both age identity and work centrality, as well as perceived social support at work, were found to be positively associated with job satisfaction, commitment, and engagement, while both perceived age discrimination and anxiety about aging were negatively associated with these three job longevity variables. The results suggest that psychosocial factors such as age identity, work centrality, and perceived social support could be targeted to improve job satisfaction, commitment, and engagement, while it would be beneficial for organizational policies to continue to focus on reducing age discrimination as well as reducing anxiety about aging in the workplace.

Background and Objectives Benevolent and hostile ageism are subtypes of ageism that characterize older adults as incompetent. With benevolent ageism, older adults are also viewed as warm. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained resources and prompted debates about priority for older adults versus other groups. Research Design and Methods College students completed an online survey of how much priority should be given to older adults in three relevant healthcare-related scenarios and three relevant employment scenarios. Results Benevolent ageism significantly predicted higher priority for older adults to receive healthcare (triage, COVID-19 vaccine, COVID-19 testing) and employment resources (retention of job, working from home) while greater endorsement of hostile ageism significantly predicted lower priority ratings. Discussion and Implications These findings replicate and extend past work. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc on healthcare and employment resources, this study sheds light on one factor -- benevolent and hostile ageism -- that contributes to a greater understanding of prioritization views toward a vulnerable segment of the population.

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election provided a unique opportunity to examine how ageism and sexism may impact attitudes (perceived presidential qualities and endorsement of positive and negative age stereotypes) toward Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Community participants (N = 875) indicated their attitudes and voting intentions 3 weeks before the election. Endorsement of positive and negative age stereotypes and perceived presidential qualities for Clinton and Trump varied based on participants' attitudes toward women, political stance (conservative/liberal), and demographic characteristics (racial/ethnic identification, education, gender identification). Individuals who perceived sexism to be more prevalent and perceived women as more competent in general had more positive attitudes toward Clinton, in contrast, only perceptions of lower prevalence of sexism (and not competence of women) predicted attitudes toward Trump. Individuals who perceived sexism as less prevalent viewed Clinton as less presidential and endorsed stronger negative age stereotypes for Clinton, while they viewed Trump as more presidential and endorsed stronger positive and weaker negative age stereotypes for Trump. Our findings suggest that both ageism and