Intergenerational Communication Across the Life Span

Angie Williams, Jon F. Nussbaum

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135690496
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Individuals of all ages interact with one another, and their interactions have significance throughout their lives. This distinctive volume acknowledges the importance of these interactions and provides a life-span developmental view of communication and aging, attempting to capture the many similarities and changes that occur in people's lives as they age. The authors move the study of intergenerational contact closer to the actual participants, examining what happens within intergenerational interactions and how people evaluate their intergenerational experiences. The volume concentrates on the micro-context of the intergenerational interaction and the cognitions, language, and relationship behaviors related to intergenerational communication across the life span. The volume employs the perspective that the understanding of human behavior across the life span is enhanced by studying communicative behavior in intergenerational interaction. The authors integrate research from multiple disciplines concerned with intergenerational communication, which is framed by several unique theoretical perspectives drawn from the communication discipline. As a resource for the study of intergenerational communication across the life span, this monograph offers important insights to scholars, students, and all who are involved in intergenerational communication.

Part I

Social, Psychological, and Developmental Foundations

Seven chapters are included within this first part of the book. Within these chapters, we focus on the theoretical perspectives that frame the book and place intergenerational communication within a life-span perspective. These chapters include not only our theoretical orientations, but discussions on intergenerational contexts, social cognitive contributions to intergenerational communication, the importance of language and language strategies within intergenerational interaction, and generational identity. In addition, these chapters serve to focus attention on the communicative importance of intergenerational contact for all participants within this most interesting and often difficult interaction.

1

Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Intergenerational Communication

Most of the time, we strongly and unquestioningly value the modern, the technologically advanced, the new, and the youthful to the detriment of things we deem as old fashioned, outdated and worn out. There are exceptions to this rule. For example, if furniture, wine, and people last long enough, they can gain great value as they beat the odds to become antiques and octogenarians. At the same time, we often assume the naiveté and lack of wisdom of those who are young. Assumptions such as these are strongly linked to chronological age and are deeply embedded in our social collective psyches; we bring them into every interaction we have with those who are much younger or older than ourselves. Intergenerational interactions can be as routine as any other interaction, or can be markedly different from those interactions that we have with peers. For example, there may be certain topics we avoid discussing with people much older or much younger than ourselves. Why should intergenerational communication be any different from peer communication? One way of answering this question is to look at various theories for an explanation. This is the focus of our first chapter.

The major perspectives and theories that have influenced intergenerational communication are outlined in this chapter to provide a framework for interpreting the research discussed in the following chapters. Although these are the perspectives and theories that have influenced many approaches to the study of intergenerational relations thus far, they are by no means the only way to understand intergenerational talk. Theories are important for performing a number of functions in scholarship; they help us to organize a wide variety of variables—both relationships and experiences—into an integrative whole. They provide the potential to extend knowledge as when two or more theoretical conceptions are combined to produce new predictions and hypotheses or when underlying theoretical understandings are challenged by new knowledge. In this way, then, theory should both stimulate and provide an organizing framework for future research. One of the broadest and most overarching perspectives is life-span perspective. In many ways this perspective forms the foundation for the study of intergenerational communication, and is certainly at the very core of our approach to communication and aging.

The Life-Span Perspective

The life-span developmental perspective provides us with an excellent orientation and frame within which to discuss intergenerational communication. During the past 30 years, the life span developmental perspective has evolved into a heuristic metaperspective, which guides much thought and research in numerous academic disciplines, including communication (see N. Coupland & Nussbaum, 1993; Nussbaum, 1989; Nussbaum, Thompson, & Robinson, 1989). Building on the early work of Erickson (1959) and others (e.g., Kolhberg, 1973), and explored at numerous life-span developmental conferences sponsored by the Department of Psychology at West Virginia University, the life-span perspective has evolved and can be summarized in five basic tenets (see Baltes, Reese, & Lipsett, 1980).

First, the potential for development extends throughout the life span; there is no ultimate end point in terms of developmental plateau (i.e., self-actualization or ego-integrity) and no prescription for, or expectation of, ultimate decline. A cursory examination of early popular developmental theories reveals a strong and lively concern with child development and what appears to be a lack of interest in adult development and aging. For example, Erickson’s (1959) final stage of ego integrity versus despair is stagnant and relies almost exclusively on the alternative stereotypes of miserable and bitter old people versus the wise elder. Erickson’s ultimate and ideal end point of life, development of integrity, seems to be in direct contrast to a life-span perspective because it implies an ultimate resolution to development—a position that is rejected by life-span scholars. Other stage theories, such as those of Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, and McKee (1978) and Gould (1978), are good examples of a concentration on early childhood development and have little to say about adult development. The life-span perspective views development as a life-long process. No age period, neither the first 12 years of life nor the last 12 years of life, holds supremacy in regulating the nature of development (Baltes, Smith, & Staudinger, 1992).

The first assertion of the life-span perspective rejects commonly accepted notions of almost universal (cognitive, psychological, physical, and social) decline as we age. This perspective has yet to be fully realized when it comes to the study of communication and aging. However, it has considerable implications for the social and communicative lives of people of all ages and our lay understandings about the aging process in general. Researchers, to date, have failed to examine many of the real-life social–developmental challenges that occur across the life span. For example, the impacts of role change, becoming parents (or choosing not to), multiple marriages, grandparenthood, great-grandparenthood, job loss, job change, retirement, increased leisure time and leisure definition, or the interactive implications of death and bereavement have not been fully investigated. Researchers have often, perhaps understandably, been more concerned with the connection between age and health, which usually means declining health, and focus on the negative and problematic aspects of aging. For example, some researchers now suggest that a focus on cognitive function under laboratory conditions has inflated the notion of cognitive decline with increased age. Although health and cognitive functioning are important considerations, intense interest at this level often excludes other fruitful avenues of study, especially those involving a more social enterprise. It also implicitly discounts other developmental issues of aging, and reinforces stereotypes of aging individuals as chronically ill and in a constant state of both mental and physical decline.

Second, according to a life-span developmental perspective, development is multidirectional. “Considerable diversity and pluralism is found in the directionality of changes that constitute development. The direction of change varies by category of behavior” (Baltes, Smith, & Staudinger, 1992, p. 125). We should not expect to experience universal patterns of growth during any one period of life. Likewise, we should not expect to experience universal periods of decline. This may be especially important for communication scholars who study the simultaneous changes in the relational networks of individuals across the life span. Several of our most significant relationships may be experiencing increased intimacy while at the same time several other significant relationships experience a loss of intimacy. In addition, development may progress on a number of dimensions (intellectual, social, and physical) at different speeds. Throughout life, we have potentialities, resources, and characteristics that should not be ignored or discounted. McCandless and Evans (1973) divided the life course into three interacting components: the physical–motor, the cognitive–intellectual, and the personal–social. Although this tripartite division was derived from the study of children, it can be extended to encompass the entirety of the life span. For example, on a personal–social developmental dimension, our roles vary throughout life: We are sons and daughters who may or may not have demanding careers, may or may not become parents and grandparents, and each role change or role conflict brings its own developmental challenges and triumphs.

Third, related to the life-span developmental principle just mentioned is the notion of development as a gain–loss dynamic. The life span should not be viewed as a process of continuous growth or continuous decline. Growth and decline are joint occurrences. This point tends to emphasize the complex nature of human interactions. In any one interaction, competencies can be achieved in one communicative area while anxieties emerge in another. It is reasonable to speculate that multiple dimensions of human interaction are in play across the life span and that these different dimensions experience growth and decline simultaneously.

Fourth, there is much intra- as well as interindividual diversity as we develop across the life span. Baltes et al. (1992) suggest that the key developmental agenda for researchers is to uncover the range and limits of intraindividual plasticity and the sources of individual differences. Why is it that we can be competent communicators with another individual at Time 1 and then have a completely frustrating communicative encounter with the same person at Time 2? Why is it that we can have a very satisfying relationship with our mother but not with our father? Why is it that the level of satisfaction with our parental relationships seems to change across the life span? As students of intergenerational communication, we cannot forget the great diversity found within each individual; and we cannot forget that these individual differences will affect our interactive lives.

Finally, the life-span perspective assumes that the person and the environment are engaged in a transactional relationship, influencing and being influenced by each other. This assertion is an attempt to resolve the debate between those who would place emphasis on nature and genetic considerations and those who would emphasize nurture or the role of the environment. Instead, the transactional approach suggests that relationships, rather than objects or elements, are of central importance. Life-span developmentalists recognize that living organisms are inherently and spontaneously active in organizing their environments, that environments have reciprocal influences on organisms, and that the confluence of the two is of most interest. In addition, each individual is situated in a sociocultural–historical context that influences all human development. It matters where and when someone is living. To understand human development, one must have a complete grasp of the many economic, political, social, and physical conditions in which the development is occurring.

Applying the life-span perspective to intergenerational communication suggests that communication between people who are of very different ages may be special and interesting to discuss in its own right. Communication between people who are developing quite differently in terms of their physical, cognitive, or psychosocial selves, and who have experienced quite different life events in unique historical contexts presents a rather large interactive challenge. In some senses, perhaps, we could even go as far as to suggest that many individuals belong to different developmental cultures and that some features of intergenerational communication can be likened to intercultural communication (N. Coupland & Nussbaum, 1993; Giles & Coupland, 1991).

The life-span perspective does not specify which theories of social behavior are the best explanations of development. Thinking of intergenerational communication as a life-span challenge, within which interpersonal relationships need to be negotiated in an historical context, opens up the possibility of drawing from intercultural theory to enhance our understanding of the particular ways that people from different generations manage their interactions. We are now in the position to consider older and younger people as members of different social–generational groups who may identify themselves within a particular generation. In fact, the development of individual identity has for many years been a lively topic for debate and theorizing among life-span and developmental theorists. However, we not only develop a sense of personal identity (who we are as a unique individual), but we also can be expected to develop a sense of social identity (our awareness of our membership in particular social groups or categories, combined with our feelings about such membership). Intergroup theory is a social–psychological theory that places a central importance on social identity and accounts for the way that people behave as members of different social groups. In recent years, intergroup theory has had a strong influence on intergenerational communication research, an influence that is shown in almost every chapter in this book.

Intergroup Theory

The term intergroup theory encompasses a cluster of theories originating in European social psychology, many of which focus on interethnic behavior such as nationalism and racial prejudice. One of the fundamental aspects of intergroup theory is the notion that identity can be either personal or social. Personal identity, according to Turner (1982), refers to self-definitions in terms of particular personality attributes and behavioral characteristics, whereas social identity is a definition of self in terms of a social category or of group membership. We may have a number of social identifications, of which some are more important than others. Context and timing also play important roles in the development and expression of social identity. For example, some situations call attention to individuals’ group memberships (their social identities) rather than to their personal identities, and both may develop throughout the life span. Different groups and social categories may have differential meaning to us depending on our life stage, social circumstances, and so on. For example, being a woman or a member of a minority ethnic group may be more salient and important at some times of life, and in some circumstances, than others. In this book, we are mainly concerned with peoples’ social identities as members of age categories or generational groups.

Tajfel (1978, 1981) argued that we have inherent tendencies to divide our social world into groups and social categories, and that we are aware of our own and other’s membership of particular social groups. To demonstrate this inherent tendency, Tajfel’s seminal experimental studies showed that merely categorizing people as belonging to two arbitrarily chosen different groups was enough for them to show ingroup favoritism in the allocation of rewards (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). In other words, as soon as we see ourselves and others as belonging to different groups, no matter how trivial the divisions, we tend to favor our own group. This tendency can be observed in many real-life situations in which group membership is the focus—nationality differences, gender differences, support of different teams in sports events, and so forth.

This means that we categorize ourselves as ingroup members, and sometimes behave as stereotypical ingroup members, emphasizing the attributes that we believe portray who we are and where we belong. There are many ways to signal group membership and to behave in stereotypical ingroup ways. For example, individuals may communicate group membership by the way they dress. Members of youth subcultures and gangs often have an unwritten dress code, and everyone who can read the code knows who belongs to which group.

Besides categorizing ourselves, we also categorize others as group members. More often than not we use ready-made information to do this, such as demographic characteristics (age, gender, race etc.), objective characteristics (hair, skin color), or salient characteristics, and we often do this regardless of whether people subjectively feel that they are members of such groups. First impressions are important: It is then that we are most likely both to categorize and to be categorized, and this may set the tone for the first conversation, for further communication, and for the future of the relationship. Once categorization occurs, we ascribe certain attributes to group members and generalize them to all group members, downplaying any given individual’s idiosyncratic or unique personality characteristics. For example, one might meet an older woman, think “she’s a typical grandma,” and assume that she is kindly and bakes good cookies. On the other hand, consider an older person who, on the basis of a youth’s disheveled appearance, categorizes that person as a degenerate regardless of whether he or she is or not. The older person might go one step further and assume that the youth is aggressive and takes drugs. These two examples demonstrate the process of stereotyping, which can ultimately lead to bias, unfair discrimination, and even prejudicial behavior toward outgroup members (see Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).

When thinking of ourselves as group members, we are also likely to attempt to assess our group standing relative to others through the process of social comparison. As a result of these comparisons, it is important that we gain distinctiveness and positive outcomes for our ingroup in relation to relevant outgroups, showing ingroup favoritism and outgroup denigration (Turner et al., 1987). According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), the main motivation for social comparison and the desire for positive distinctiveness is to gain self-esteem as group members. Other motivations may be present too, such as the desire for coherent self-conceptions and the desire to make oneself and one’s experiences meaningful (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Ultimately, however, we want to feel good about ourselves and our groups; we want our groups to be on top; and we want to be the good guys and the winners. One...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• Acknowledgments
• Part I Social, Psychological, and Developmental Foundations
• Part II Intergenerational Relationship Communication
• Part III Macrosocietal Perspectives
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index