1.

Age Identity and Intergenerational

Relationships in the Family
CRAIG FOWLER AND ANDREA ZORN

Intergenerational family relationships (IGFRs) represent a distinctive inter-

age bond, comprising as they do both an intragroup element (deriving from
shared family status) and an intergroup dimension (resulting from parties to
the relationship having divergent age identities) (Soliz & Rittenour, 2012).
Although a sense of shared family identity may partially protect IGFRs from
intergroup-based communication challenges that can buffet non-familial
inter-age relationships (Soliz & Harwood, 2006), IGFRs remain a context
within which ageism occurs (Pecchioni & Croghan, 2002).
In this chapter we first discuss demographic trends that shape and con-
textualize ties between parents and children, and between grandparents and
grandchildren. Second, we highlight theoretical perspectives that inform our
understanding of whether divergent age identities pose a barrier to congenial
IGFRs. Third, we examine how IGFRs may influence cross-generational rela-
tionships occurring in non-family settings. Finally, we identify implications for
scholars and practitioners.

Weedkiller on the Beanpole: Dampening Overexcitement about

the Familial Benefits of Increased Longevity
An intriguing claim regarding how demographic trends affect family struc-
tures is that the combination of increased life expectancy and declining birth
rates has increased the prevalence of “beanpole” families that have relatively
few branches (horizontal, intra-generational ties), but a lengthy trunk (ver-
tical, inter-generational ties; Dykstra & Komter, 2012). Thirty years ago, in
fact, it was noted that because of the verticalization of families, “a growing
number of women may spend a few years when they are both grandmothers
2 FOWLER AND & ZORN

and granddaughters” (Hagestad, 1988, pp. 406–407), and the suggestion

that families would soon more frequently consist of four or five generations
gained acceptance (Matthews & Sun, 2006).
We had hoped to offer a contemporary assessment of the number of
persons living in four- and five-generation families. However, although
Uhlenberg (1993) suggested that it should be straightforward to gather data
that could establish how common four- and five-generation families actually
are, asking the right questions of the right people is sufficiently challenging
that Herlofson and Hagestad (2011) consider “How common are four-gen-
erational structures in a given society?” an “unanswerable question” (p. 348).
Certain facts of family life can be stated confidently, however. First, the
prospect of more numerous four- and five-generation families seems not to
have come to fruition. Indeed, some data suggests their incidence has declined
in recent years (Grünheid & Scharein, 2011; Lundholm & Malmberg, 2009)
because of reduced fertility and delayed childbirth (Margolis & Wright, 2017;
Matthews & Sun, 2006), and that the norm is for families to run “three gen-
erations deep” at a time (Dykstra & Komter, 2012). Second, increased life
expectancies let contemporary families sustain IGFRs over periods of time
that would have been unfathomable a century ago. According to Hagestad
and Uhlenberg (2007), for example, the probability that a ten-year old
would have all four (biological) grandparents alive increased from 6% to 41%
over the twentieth century. Grandchildren can also expect to have at least
one grandparent alive well into adulthood. For instance, whereas just one-
fifth of 30-year-olds had a living grandparent in the year 1900, this figure is
expected to increase to four-fifths in the near future (Hagestad & Uhlenberg,
2007). Regarding these changes, Silverstein and Long (1998) observe that
“an unprecedented number of grandparents…live long enough to see their
grandchildren reach adolescence, young adulthood, and middle age, thereby
allowing the possibility of long-term relationships between them” (p. 912).
Comparable trends characterize parent-child relationships: From
U.S. data, Uhlenberg (1996) concluded that the probability of having both
parents alive at the age of 40 increased from 22% to 59% during the twen-
tieth century, whereas the probability of having neither parent alive at that
age fell from 28% to 5%. Cheeringly, Uhlenberg also determined that by the
age of 50, more than 80% of individuals are likely to have at least one living
parent, and European data is similarly encouraging (Lundholm & Malmberg,
2009; van Gaalen & Deerenberg, 2014). Thus, although the rise of four- and
five-generation families has not materialized, people are likely to have living
parents and grandparents for much longer than was previously the case.
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 3

Theorizing Intergenerational Family Ties

How Do Age Identities Affect IGFRs?
A person’s age identity encompasses not only awareness of chronological age,
but understandings of how old they feel, of how old they are perceived as being
by others, of the labels attached to them by others on the basis of age, and the
social significance of these labels (Logan, Ward, & Spitze, 1992). Although
age identities are influenced by factors such as one’s actual age, life-cycle
stage, and health status (Logan et al., 1992), they are also socially and discur-
sively constructed (Harwood, 2008). Rather than being a fixed “thing,” our
age identities are “dynamic and interactionally achieved…constructed by and
for individuals, often bilaterally” (Coupland, Coupland, Giles, & Henwood,
1991, p. 87). As Taylor (1992) asserts, conversations (between younger and
older persons) “can be read as collaboratively authored documents that reveal
who and what the participants think they are…Conversation is an arena for
performance and contest in which actors create, maintain, and challenge rep-
resentation of their identities” (p. 495).
Interactions between persons with different age identities are often
thought to be fraught with difficulty, particularly when the parties involved
are highly aware of their discrepant group identities (Harwood, Raman, &
Hewstone, 2006). In this section, we discuss the impact that differing age
identities (and mindfulness of the same) may have on parties to IGFRs.
According to the intergenerational stake hypothesis (IGSH), parents often
evaluate the parent-child relationship more positively with respect to intimacy
and enjoyableness than do their children (Bengtson and Kuypers, 1971). The
IGSH proposes that older family members (who are conscious that they are
comparatively close to the end of their lifespan) view intergenerational conti-
nuity and connectedness to (grand)children as extremely important and thus
have a vested interest in prioritizing (and claiming) harmony and consensus in
their IGFRs. Conversely, younger generations are often more concerned with
establishing autonomy, making the most of (perhaps newfound) personal
freedom, and establishing who they are independently of their family, and
therefore have less incentive to perceive IGFRs through the rose-tinted lenses
that color the gaze of (grand)parents. In fundamental ways, then, aware-
ness of one’s age identity and related developmental tasks affects perceptions
of IGFRs.
Age identities have other important implications for IGFRs. Because fam-
ily members of different generations may have different values and norms,
and have likely experienced transitions and events that non age-peers either
cannot understand or cannot remember, there may be little common ground
4 FOWLER AND & ZORN

on which to build relationships. Fingerman (2003) labels this generational

divide a “developmental schism.” The schism may be most problematic when
the youngest generation are still children, adolescents, or emerging as adults.
This is because gains in longevity permit a lengthy period of co-living1 during
which children and parents interact on a peer-like basis. Objectively, a child
born when their mother is 25 will continue to be 25 years younger than their
mother for as long as both are alive. Subjectively, however, that 25-year gap
becomes less meaningful over time: Being the five-year-old child of someone
who is 30 (or even the 25 year-old child of someone who is 50) is a very
different experience from being the 70-year-old child of someone who is 95,
for in the latter case, the child and parent have more comparable experiential
repertoires. This argument coheres with the role similarity hypothesis, accord-
ing to which increases in closeness and reductions in conflict are expected as
parents and children come to share a greater number of social and familial
statuses (Aquilino, 1997; De Goede, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). Moreover,
as adult children enter middle age, they attain “filial maturity,” and are able
to see their mother and father not merely as parents, but as individuals with
their own “past histories,” their own flaws, and as people with whom they can
have an “empathetic, compassionate, and reciprocal…relationship” (Birditt,
Fingerman, Lefkowitz, & Kamp Dush, 2008, pp. 1–2).
As members of IGFRs grow older and live alongside one another for
longer, age salience in day-to-day interactions may decrease. Nonetheless,
certain events may bring consciousness of age identities to the fore, which
can influence IGFRs. An older relative might become increasingly mindful
of their age as they experience transitions such as surrendering their driver’s
license or entering residential care. Such recognition of one’s advancing years
may be accompanied by the realization that one has relatively little time left to
live. And, per socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1992), this sense
of whether one has an expansive versus constricted future time perspective
influences prioritization of emotional versus knowledge-based goals: When
an individual believes they are “running out of time,” (s)he is expected to
place greater weight on maximizing emotional well-being, manifest through
choices of interactional partners and prosocial behavior with those partners.
Of course, the same events that render age salient for older relatives may also
make age salient for younger kin who know of them. From the perspective
of a child or grandchild, for example, when a (grand)parent stops driving
or moves into a care facility, such events make age salient and force them
to acknowledge their relative’s mortality. The term “relational time perspec-
tive [RTP]” (Fingerman, Miller, & Charles, 2008, p. 401) captures a per-
son’s sense of whether another person (and thus their relationship with that
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 5

person) has a foreshortened or extended future and helps account for “the
behaviors…[older persons] evoke from their social partners” (Fingerman &
Baker, 2006, p. 196): When a person perceives only a limited RTP, they may
modify their behavior towards a others in order to “enhance…positive expe-
riences and minimize tensions…rather than risk ending the relationship on a
sour note” (Fingerman et al., 2008, p. 400). Thus, when awareness of age
identity is accompanied by foreshortened (future or relational) time perspec-
tive, people may be particularly motivated to work at maintaining or restoring
the emotional quality of IGFRs.

How Do IGFRs Affect Age Identities?

Although the preceding discussion highlights the potential for age identity to
affect IGFRs, the relationship between age identity and family communica-
tion is likely reciprocal. That is, family relationships may also affect (or effect)
age identities. Here, we examine how the communication of younger family
members can induce or entrench among older kin age identities that con-
form to ageist stereotypes, discuss how older family members’ communicative
choices can shape age identities ascribed to them by younger kin, and argue
that family communication teaches young and old alike the meaning of age at
different points in the lifespan.
Young-to-old Family Communication and the Inducement of Ageist Age
Identities. Intergenerational communication is one means by which older
adults—via reflected appraisal—develop a sense of self who they are, and
grasp how much they are (or are not) valued by younger people. This way of
thinking reflects an intergroup perspective on communication (Giles, 2012),
because it presumes that individuals place themselves (and others) into social
categories, attribute meaning to these categories, and interact partly on the
basis of these social categories. Perhaps no single perspective from our dis-
cipline has shed as much light on intergenerational relationships as commu-
nication accommodation theory (CAT; Giles, 2016), which describes and
explains the communicative modifications people enact during conversations
with individuals belonging to other social categories.
Interactions (and behaviors occurring within them) can be labeled accom-
modative or nonaccommodative. Accommodative communication is perceived
as prosocial and appropriately adapted. Older adults are likely to perceive as
accommodative younger communicators who are respectful, complimentary,
attentive, and supportive (Williams et al., 1997). Nonaccommodative inter-
actions are those construed as negative, or as featuring inappropriately
adjusted (or unadjusted) talk. Young-to-old nonaccommodation typically
6 FOWLER AND & ZORN

involves patronizing communication in the form of overly nurturing or

controlling speech (Giles & Gasiorek, 2011). A prominent account of the
interplay between communication accommodation and age identity is found
in the Communication Predicament Model of Aging (CPM) (Ryan, Giles,
Bartolucci, & Henwood, 1986).
According to the CPM, when people encounter older individuals, phys-
iological, environmental, behavioral, and contextual cues render age salient
and “activate” negative old-age stereotypes. Once triggered, these stereo-
types prompt negative expectations for the interaction (e.g., that it will be
unsatisfying; that the older adult will be a difficult conversationalist, see Ryan,
Kwong See, Meneer, & Trovato, 1992). These expectations, in turn, lead
younger interactants to overaccommodate the older adult by engaging in
excessively nurturing or directive speech, which curtails the communicative
and behavioral autonomy of the older person. Rodin and Langer (1980), for
example, report an experiment in which participants elected to ask simpler
interview questions to 71-year-old targets rather than 42-year-old targets,
thereby limiting the older adults’ presentation of self. That a limited conver-
sational playbook may be employed during conversations with older adults
(familial or otherwise) is problematic, because “If someone is talking to you
as if you are a 4-year-old, it’s pretty difficult to display intellectual prowess or
sparkling wit!” (Harwood, 2007, p. 79).
Receivers and observers of patronizing communication tend to “blame
the victim” (La Tourette & Meeks, 2000; Ryan, Bourhis, & Knops, 1991).
Consequently, older recipients of patronizing talk may perceive such talk as
having being earned and come to redefine themselves as “old.” The toll taken
by overaccommodative speech is particularly striking given that older adults
frequently report not only feeling younger than their actual age, but expect
others to believe they are younger than their actual age (Kaufman & Elder,
2002). In fact, this may help account for why older persons often experience
younger interlocutors’ communication as overaccommodative: One can imag-
ine an exchange in which (1) an older adult demands that a younger inter-
locutor explain “Why are you talking to me as though I’m 90?”, (2) receives
the response “Because you are 90!” and (3) replies huffily “Well, I only feel
like I’m 70.”
Ultimately, the CPM holds that recipients of stereotype-driven over-
accommodation experience a loss of agency and self-esteem (O’Connor &
Rigby, 1996) that can render them fatalistic about age-related decline (Rodin
& Langer, 1980), prompt withdrawal from social interaction, and elicit the
very age cues the younger interactant assumed were present from the start
(Ryan et al., 1986). For example, Coudin and Alexopoulos (2010) concluded
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 7

from their experiments that “the mere activation of negative stereotypes can
cause older adults to adopt a condition that is reminiscent of dependent
states, where the elderly complain about their loneliness and remain passive,
avoiding any behavioral initiative or risk taking” (p. 519). Similarly, Eibach,
Mock, and Courtney (2010) found that when older persons were primed with
negative age stereotypes—particularly when they also encountered youth-ori-
ented linguistic codes that emphasized their own agedness—they adopted
more age-typed moral positions. Thus, the stereotypes that were held by the
younger interactant now comprise part of the older person’s internalized age
identity, resulting in external behaviors that may restart the CPM cycle during
subsequent interactions with younger persons.
Although research on the CPM is often conducted in healthcare contexts,
the paradigm also furthers our understanding of how, through communica-
tion, younger generations may harm the age identities of older family mem-
bers. As one group of scholars explained, “Interaction with family members
can…demoralize older adults by communicating too much care and con-
cern and promoting excessive dependence” (Nussbaum, Pitts, Huber, Raup
Krieger, & Ohs, 2005, p. 292). Likewise, Taylor (1992) argues that the most
integral members of older people’s social networks may be the very people
whose communicative behaviors disempower them and instill in them a sense
of agedness. This is problematic, for Kaufman and Elder (2002) suggest that
“feel[ing] younger relative to their age…may be a strategy for resisting old
age and approaching death” (p. 175). Overaccommodation, therefore, is not
merely a minor irritant. Rather, by signaling that a person is perceived as
elderly, it provides an unwelcome reminder of one’s mortality and under-
mines cognitive resistance to the existential threat posed by death (Martens,
Goldenberg, & Greenberg, 2005).
Old-to-Young Talk Prompts Ascription of Age Identities and Increases Age
Salience. Whereas CPM-related studies speak to the possibility that—through
their age-based accommodations—younger persons coerce older persons into
assuming subjectively negative age identities, other research shows that older
persons have agency to create for themselves particular age identities via their
linguistic and communicative behaviors. In any intergenerational encounter,
older adults’ disclosure of age, references to age roles or categories, discussion
of historical events, and commentary regarding their health trajectory can
make age salient and emphasize the intergroup nature of the conversation.
In the specific context of IGFRs, Harwood et al. (2006) documented
the potential for grandparents’ communication to render age salient and
modify the age identities presented to grandchildren. In particular, the con-
tent, topic, and style of grandparents’ communication often reinforced the
8 FOWLER AND & ZORN

age-based intergroup component of grandparent-grandchild (GP-GC) rela-

tionships by increasing age salience. For example, grandchildren were more
conscious of their grandparents’ age when grandparents revealed painful
information; talked about their age, health, or the past; or demonstrated a
lack of understanding regarding contemporary society. Contextual features of
grandparent communication, such as appearing deaf or speaking in ways that
implied a cognitive impairment (e.g., forgetfulness and repetitiveness) also
reinforced age salience, as did stylistic feature of talk such as appearing conde-
scending. Many of these communicative characteristics could—from a CAT
perspective—be characterized as underaccommodative because they show
insufficient awareness of (or adaptation to) the conversational preferences of
grandchildren. Moreover, by eliciting increased recognition of agedness and
emphasizing the intergroup element of interaction, these underaccommoda-
tive behaviors predict decreased closeness in the GP-GC bond and inhibit the
development of a sense of shared family identity (Soliz & Harwood, 2006).
Family Talk Guides Understandings about the Meaning of Age and Age
identity. Family communication guides individuals’ expectations regarding
ageing and development, and thus shapes the implications of ageing for
identity—and perhaps the “possible selves” (Ryff, 1991; Smith & Freund,
2002)—that family members internalize. For instance, the communication
young adults experience during their interactions with older family mem-
bers can constitute memorable messages (Holladay, 2002) and environmental
chatter (Gasiorek, Fowler, & Giles, 2016) that establish and transform under-
standings of aging and age identity.
To some extent, young adults come to understand what it means to grow
older (and thus what age identity might “look like” at different life stages)
via explicit, memorable messages about aging from older persons, and, in
particular, older family members (Holladay, 2002). Interestingly, Holladay’s
sample of young adults recalled about one and a half unequivocally “pos-
itive” message about aging per unambiguously “negative” message, and
believed that older persons thought carefully about the messages they sought
to convey about aging. Nonetheless, younger people also encounter count-
less unspoken or incidental messages about aging from family members. For
instance, simply observing one’s older family members likely shapes younger
persons’ expectations for aging, and their routine interactions with older rel-
atives surely contribute to their understanding of what it is (and will be)
like to be an older person (Carstensen, 2009; Harwood & Anderson, 2002).
Older relatives are important role models for young persons, demonstrating
through their behavior and demeanor what it means to be old and offering
insight into whom one’s “future self” might be.
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 9

Whereas older persons might think carefully about the messages they
want younger persons to take on board about aging, younger persons may
habitually say things and act in ways that make it clear to older relatives that
they consider being old problematic. Birthday celebrations of older persons,
for instance, often involve teasing (Ellis & Morrison, 2005) that both inhibit
the recipient’s ability to construct a positive (age) identity (Ryan et al., 1986),
and entrench ageist stereotypes in the sender’s own mind (Levy, 2009).

Beyond the Family: Family Communication and Society

Although recent findings and reviews are equivocal (Mendonça, Marques,
& Abrams, 2018), some studies suggest young children recognize signs of
aging, can distinguish between images of people representing different age
groups, and perceive older adults in negative stereotypic ways (e.g., Burke,
1982). Further, even though very young children have a limited grasp of
how age is measured and expressed in years, they nonetheless recognize that
sketches of a person at four different “stages of life” represent the aging pro-
cess. For example, Seefeldt, Jantz, Galper, and Serock (1977) presented chil-
dren with four pictures showing the same man at approximately 30, 45, 64,
and 77 years of age. Despite the fact that the 3- and 4-year-old children in
this sample never estimated the man’s age at higher than 10 years, they were
reliably able to identify the picture that depicted the oldest man. Recent, large
scale studies suggest that older children (aged 10–11 years) have multi-fac-
eted notions of aging and older adults, but reinforce that negative stereotypes
relating to older people’s mobility, capacity for independence, and cognitive
impairment are pervasive (Lloyd, Devine, & Carney, 2018).
Given that relatively few young children have contact with older people
outside the family (Page, Olivas, Driver, & Driver, 1981), it is understand-
able that researchers have examined how communication in the GP-GC rela-
tionship may influence not only the quality of relationships between family
members, but shape attitudes towards older people in general. Harwood,
Hewstone, Paolini, and Voci (2005) grounded their examination of GP-GC
communication in intergroup contact theory, and tested the hypothesis that
grandchildren’s contact with grandparents (who represent members of the
age-based outgroup) would predict attitudes towards older people in gen-
eral. These authors found grandchildren’s high-quality contact with frequent-
ly-encountered grandparents predicted more positive attitudes towards older
people outside the family, although this effect hinged on grandchildren being
conscious of age differences and perceiving their grandparents as represen-
tative of older persons in general. These findings are intriguing. On the one
10 FOWLER AND & ZORN

hand, it is when age is salient during GP-GC conversations that younger

family members project experiences with grandparents onto older adults
more broadly (Harwood et al., 2005). On the other hand, age salience is
typically heightened in the GP-GC relationship by communication behaviors
that are seen as problematic and that predict reduced closeness (Harwood
et al., 2006).
Notably, in Harwood et al.’s (2005) work, only two grandparent commu-
nication behaviors made age less salient for grandchildren—telling stories and
demonstrating wisdom/giving advice. Strikingly, these same behaviors pre-
dicted increased closeness in the relationship. That expressions of wisdom and
storytelling are well-received by grandchildren is unsurprising, for research
shows that family story-telling enhances family functioning and strengthens
familial identity, as well as providing opportunities for sense-making and value
transference (Kellas, 2005). Several studies suggest that—via the inculcation
of particular values—the impact of storytelling within IGFRs extends beyond
the family itself. It is particularly noteworthy, perhaps, that intergenerational
storytelling contributes to the gender socialization of younger family mem-
bers, thereby shaping their values as they enter the workplace and engage in
relationships outside of the family. In Taylor, Fisackerly, Mauren, and Taylor
(2013) study of young adults, for instance, researchers asked students to write
a paper about a meaningful family story. For most participants, grandparents
were the source of the stories relayed, which varied along gendered lines: The
stories most often recalled by women emphasized relational themes, and
were, most often, described as having taught recipients to be appreciative and
loving. Conversely, male participants most typically recalled stories addressing
the overcoming of hardship (or involving humorous anecdotes), which led
them to develop a strong work ethic, show respect for others, and display
strength or courage.
Interestingly, Taylor et al.’s findings echo earlier research showing that
grandmothers and grandfathers take a gendered approach to telling “mean-
ingful” stories. In Nussbaum and Bettini’s (1994) study, for example, grand-
mothers’ stories focused overwhelmingly on family history. Conversely, a
majority of grandfathers took the opportunity to provide moral instruction or
to discuss the preciousness of life. A recent investigation (Odenweller, Brann,
Rittenour, & Myers, 2018) of memorable messages received by sons about
“being a man” found that similar themes were emphasized (e.g., work ethic,
strength, being a good provider), which suggests that grandparents’ and par-
ents’ narratives influence gender socialization and the adoption of particular
values and priorities that affect younger family members as they navigate what
it means to be a man or a woman. With men often being encouraged to “find
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 11

a good job to provide for their future families, and women often encour-
aged to find men who would provide for them and their children” (Taylor
et al., 2013, p. 385), recent and current cohorts of grandchildren may often
encounter family stories that reify traditional notions of gender.

Implications for Scholars and Practitioners

As we conclude this chapter, we hope to explain why we are optimistic regard-
ing the ability of families to manage the inter-age element of their relationship.
One encouraging area of research stresses that members of different ages can
transcend divergent group identities by recognizing a shared superordinate
group status. Inspired by the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner &
Dovidio, 2000), Soliz’s work (2007; Soliz & Harwood, 2006) identifies spe-
cific grandparent communication behaviors (e.g., providing social support,
mutual openness, avoiding nonaccommodation) that promote in grandchil-
dren a shared sense of family identity that overshadows age-based intergroup
elements of their relationship.
A second cause for optimism derives from research showing that by
responding with assertiveness, humor, and appreciation, older adults have
agency to challenge ageist assumptions of incompetence and limit their inter-
nalization of negative stereotypes of aging (Harwood, Giles, Fox, Ryan, &
Williams, 1993; Ryan, Anas, & Friedman, 2006). Likewise, researchers also
stress that younger adults can communicate with older kin in ways that facil-
itate the development and maintenance of positive age identities by adapting
their communication to the individualized needs and preferences of older
interactants (rather than to a generic stereotype of older persons) (Ryan,
Meredith, MacLean, & Orange, 1995).
Ryan et al. (1995) propose that intergenerational conversations can
become venues for the empowerment of older persons and the promotion
of health and vitality. This suggestion is neither utopian nor unrealistic.
Currently, communication training targeted at families tends to focus on
communication down the generational line. For example, it is easy to find
workshops that help parents talk to their children about online safety, sex-
ual health, and so on. It is considerably harder to find workshops focused
on improving communication towards older family members. Some training
programs that help younger interactants recognize when they are engaging in
problematic communication with older adults do exist, albeit in professional
contexts. Nonetheless, they are effective at reducing the use of overaccom-
modative behaviors such as terms of endearment, collective pronouns, sim-
plified/shortened speech, and helping participants communicate with older
12 FOWLER AND & ZORN

persons in ways that are judged to be less controlling and more respectful
(Williams, Kemper, & Hummert, 2003). Scholars and practitioners should
consider how such programs might be adapted for family settings.
Finally, IGFRs may also be strengthened by increased use of digital com-
munication, for communication technology (CT) has important implications
for associational and functional aspects of intergenerational solidarity (Peng
et al., 2019). Indeed, because young adults often help older family members
get the most out of new technologies (Child, Duck, Andrews, Butauski, &
Petronio,, 2015; Taipale, 2019), Strom and Strom (2015) suggest “adoles-
cents [have] opportunities to assume a leadership role in improving intergen-
erational communication” (p. 50).
Research on computer-mediated IGFRs suggests that the use of CT needs
to be handled carefully. Taipale (2019) observes, for instance, that some fam-
ily members feel excluded from (or opt-out of) group-based communication
tools (e.g., WhatsApp), and that people may perceive family members’ online
presence and postings as embarrassing or offensive. Moreover, generational
differences in norms of face-to-face communication carry over into the dig-
ital space, suggesting that younger and older family members must learn to
accommodate one another’s preferences and standards for online discourse,
both with respect to style and content. Taipale (2019) notes that among a
Finnish sample, “younger family members were more accustomed to open
and straightforward online communication…[while]…older ones called for
thoughtfulness and linguistic correctness” (p. 108).
Scholarship grounded in communication privacy management theory
(e.g., Child et al., 2015; Child & Westermann, 2013) suggests that although
concerns about maintaining digital privacy boundary between oneself and
one’s older family members may not be widespread, young adults are more
prone to adjust privacy settings (e.g., regarding what is visible to older rel-
atives with whom they are Facebook friends) when trust is lower in the
relationship. To the extent that younger relatives (e.g., grandchildren) feel
that older relatives have inaccurate perceptions of who they are, or feel con-
strained from revealing who they really are to older relatives, they may expe-
rience “identity gaps,” which are predictive of decreased relational closeness
(Pusateri, Roaché, & Kam, 2016). An interesting possibility is that commu-
nication technology may affect families differently depending on pre-existing
levels of intimacy and openness: Open, intimate families for whom digital
channels offer additional opportunities to interact may benefit from technol-
ogy, whereas families whose constituent members are less trusting, share less
consensus in their beliefs, and feel unable to “be themselves,” may experience
new relational challenges as they adopt new technologies.
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 13

Conclusion
Family members are often able to spend several decades journeying through
the lifespan together. Although they may encounter challenges with respect
to finding common ground and mitigating communicative implications of
age stereotypes, such challenges are surmountable. By cultivating a shared
sense of family identity, managing ageist assumptions, finding ways to com-
municatively empower one another, and tapping into the benefits of digital
technologies, contemporary families can transcend the barriers to intimacy
that divergent age identities may erect.

References
Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of par-
ent-child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 59, 670–686. doi:10.2307/353953
Bengtson, V. L., & Kuypers, J. A. (1971). Generational difference and the developmen-
tal stake. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 2, 249–260.
doi:10.2190/AG.2.4.b
Birditt, K. S., Fingerman, K. L., Lefkowitz, E. S., & Kamp Dush, C. M. (2008). Parents
perceived as peers: Filial maturity in adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 15,
1–12. doi:10.1007/s10804-007-9019-2
Burke, J. L. (1982). Young children’s attitudes and perceptions of older adults.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 14, 205–222.
doi:10.2190/4J7N-RG79-HJQR-FLDN
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support
for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331
Carstensen, L. L. (2009). A long bright future: An action plan for a lifetime of happiness,
health, and financial security. New York, NY: Random House.
Child, J. T., Duck, A. R., Andrews, L. A., Butauski, M., & Petronio, S. (2015). Young
adults’ management of privacy on Facebook with multiple generations of family
members. Journal of Family Communication, 15, 349–367. doi:10.1080/1526743
1.2015.1076425
Child, J. T., & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring
parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management
(CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 46–59. doi:10.1080/1
5267431.2012.742089
Coudin, G., & Alexopoulos, T. (2010). ‘Help me! I’m old!’ How negative aging stereo-
types create dependency among older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 14, 516–523.
doi:10.1080/13607861003713182
14 FOWLER AND & ZORN

Coupland, J., Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1991). Formulating
age: Dimensions of age identity in elderly talk. Discourse Processes, 14, 87–106.
doi:10.1080/01638539109544776
De Goede, I. H. A., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Developmental changes
in adolescents’ perceptions of relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38, 75–88. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9286-7
Dykstra, P. A., & Komter, A. E. (2012). Generational interdependencies in families: The
MULTILINKS research programme. Demographic Research, 27, 487–506.
Eibach, R. P., Mock, S. E., & Courtney, E. A. (2010). Having a “senior moment”: Induced
aging phenomenology, subjective age, and susceptibility to ageist stereotypes. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 643–649. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.002
Ellis, S. R., & Morrison, T. G. (2005). Stereotypes of ageing: Messages promoted by age-
specific paper birthday cards available in Canada. International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, 61, 57–73. doi:10.2190/ULUU-UN83-8W18-EP70
Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Mothers and their adult daughters: Mixed emotions, enduring
bonds. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.
Fingerman, K. L., & Baker, B. (2006). Socioemotional aspects of aging. In J. Wilmouth
& K. Ferraro (Eds.), Gerontology: Perspectives and issues (3rd ed., pp. 183–202).
New York, NY: Springer.
Fingerman, K. L., Miller, L., & Charles, S. (2008). Saving the best for last: How
adults treat social partners of different ages. Psychology and Aging, 23, 399–409.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.23.2.399
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup
identity model. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Gasiorek, J., Fowler, C. A., & Giles, H. (2016). Communication and successful
aging. In J. F. Nussbaum (Ed.), Communication across the lifespan (pp. 35–50).
New York: Peter Lang.
Giles, H. (Ed.). (2012). The handbook of intergroup communication. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Giles, H. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating per-
sonal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Giles, H., & Gasiorek, J. (2011). Intergenerational communication practices. In K. W.
Schaie & S. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 231–245).
New York: Elsevier.
Grünheid, E., & Scharein, M. G. (2011). On developments in the mean joint lifetimes of
three- and four-generation families in Western and Eastern Germany: A model calcula-
tion. Comparative Population Studies, 36, 41–76. doi:10.4232/10.CPoS-2011-01en
Hagestad, G. (1988). Demographic change and the life course: Some emerging trends in
the family realm. Family Relations, 37, 405–410. doi:10.2307/584111
Hagestad, G. O., & Uhlenberg, P. (2007). The impact of demographic changes on rela-
tions between age groups and generations: A comparative perspective. In K. W. Schaie
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 15

& P. Uhlenberg (Eds.), Social structures: Demographic changes and the well-being of
older persons. New York, NY: Springer.
Harwood, J. (2007). Understanding communication and aging: Developing knowledge and
awareness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harwood, J. (2008). Age identity and communication. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The inter-
national encyclopedia of communication. doi:10.1002/9781405186407.wbieca034
Harwood, J., & Anderson, K. (2002). The presence and portrayal of social
groups on prime-time television. Communication Reports, 15, 81–97.
doi:10.1080/08934210209367756
Harwood, J., Giles, H., Fox, S., Ryan, E. B., & Williams, A. (1993). Patronizing young
and elderly adults: Response strategies in a community setting. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 21. doi:10.1080/00909889309365368
Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., Paolini, S., & Voci, A. (2005). Grandparent-grandchild con-
tact and attitudes toward older adults: Moderator and mediator effects. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 393–406. doi:10.1177/0146167204271577
Harwood, J., Raman, P., & Hewstone, M. (2006). The family and communication dynam-
ics of group salience. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 181–200. doi:10.1207/
s15327698jfc0603_2
Herlofson, K., & Hagestad, G. O. (2011). Challenges in moving from macro to
micro: Population and family structure in ageing societies. Demographic Research, 25,
337–370. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2011.25.10
Holladay, S. J. (2002). “Have fun while you can,” “You’re only as old as you feel,” and
“Don’t ever get old!”: An examination of memorable messages about aging. Journal
of Communication, 52, 681–697. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02568.x
Kaufman, G., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2002). Revisiting age identity: A research note. Journal
of Aging Studies, 16, 169–176. doi:10.1016/S0890-4065(02)00042-7
Kellas, J. K. (2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family sto-
ries. Communication Monographs, 72, 365–389. doi:10.1080/03637750500322453
La Tourette, T. R., & Meeks, S. (2000). Perceptions of patronizing speech by older
women in nursing homes and in the community: Impact of cognitive ability and place
of residence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 463–473. doi:10.1177/
0261927X00019004004
Levy, B. R. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach
to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 332–336.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01662.x
Lloyd, K., Devine, P., & Carney, G. M. (2018). Imagining their future selves: Children’s
attitudes to older people and their expectations of life at age 70. Children & Society,
32, 444–456. doi:10.1111/chso.12289
Logan, J. R., Ward, R., & Spitze, G. (1992). As old as you feel: Age identity in middle and
later life. Social Forces, 71, 451–467, doi:10.2307/2580019
16 FOWLER AND & ZORN

Lundholm, E., & Malmberg, G. (2009). Between elderly parents and grandchil-
dren: Geographic proximity and trends in four-generation families. Population
Ageing, 2, 121–137. doi:10.1007/s12062-010-9022-4
Margolis, R. (2016). The changing demography of grandparenthood. Journal of Marriage
and family, 78, 610–622. doi:10.1111/jomf.12286
Margolis, R., & Wright, L. (2017). Older adults with three generations of kin: Prevalence,
correlates, and transfers. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 72, 1067–1072.
doi:10.1093/geronb/gbv158
Martens, A., Goldenberg, J. L., & Greenberg, J. (2005). A terror management perspective on
ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 223–239. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00403.x
Matthews, S. H., & Sun, R. (2006). Incidence of four-generation family lineages: Is tim-
ing of fertility or mortality a better explanation? Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences,
61B, S99–S106. doi:10.1093/geronb/61.2.S99
Mendonça, J., Marques, S., & Abrams, D. (2018). Children’s attitudes toward older peo-
ple: Current and future directions. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary
perspectives on ageism (pp. 517–548). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_30
Nussbaum, J. F., & Bettini, L. M. (1994). Shared stories of the grandparent-grandchild
relationship. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 39, 67–80.
doi:10.2190/7WPK-LM6C-QCA4-GQ4R
Nussbaum, J. F., Pitts, M. J., Huber, F. N., Raup Krieger, J. L., & Ohs, J. E. (2005). Ageism
and ageist language across the lifespan: Intimate relationships and non-intimate interac-
tions. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 287–305. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00406.x
O’Connor, B. P., & Rigby, H. (1996). Perceptions of baby talk, frequency of receiving
baby talk, and self-esteem among community and nursing home residents. Psychology
and Aging, 11, 147–154. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.11.1.147
Odenweller, K. G., Brann, M., Rittenour, C. E., & Myers, S. A. (2018). Intergenerational
transmission of traditional and contemporary gender ideologies via father-son mem-
orable messages. Communication Research Reports, 35, 232–244. doi:10.1080/088
24096.2018.1442823
Page, S., Olivas, R., Driver, J., & Driver, R. (1981). Children’s attitudes toward the elderly
and aging. Educational Gerontology, 7, 43–47. doi:10.1080/0360127810070105
Pecchioni, L. L., & Croghan, J. M. (2002). Young adults’ stereotypes of older adults
with their grandparents as the targets. Journal of Communication, 52, 715–730.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02570.x
Peng, S., Silverstein, M., Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., Hwang, W., Nam, S., & Routh, B.
(2019). Use of communication technology to maintain intergenerational con-
tact: toward an understanding of ‘digital solidarity. In B. B. Neves & C. Casimiro
(Eds.), Connecting families? Information & communication technologies, generations,
and the life course (pp. 159–180). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Pusateri, K. B., Roaché, D. J., & Kam, J. A. (2016). Grandparents’ and young adult
grandchildren’s identity gaps and perceived caregiving intentions: An actor-partner
Age Identity and Intergenerational Relationships 17

interdependence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 191–216.

doi:10.1177/0265407514568750
Rodin, J., & Langer, E. (1980). Aging labels: The decline of control and the fall of self-es-
teem. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 12–29. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1980.tb02019.x
Ryan, E. B., Anas, A. P., & Friedman, D. B. (2006). Evaluations of older adult assertive-
ness in problematic clinical encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25,
129–145. doi:10.1177/0261927X06286350
Ryan, E. B., Bourhis, R. Y., & Knops, U. (1991). Evaluative perceptions of
patronizing speech addressed to elders. Psychology and Aging, 6, 442–450.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.6.3.442
Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., Bartolucci, G., & Henwood, K. (1986). Psycholinguistic and social
psychological components of communication by and with the elderly. Language &
Communication, 6, 1–24. doi:10.1016/0271-5309(86)90002-9
Ryan, E. B., Kwong See, S., Meneer, W. B., & Trovato, D. (1992). Age-based perceptions
of language performance among younger and older adults. Communication Research,
19, 423–443. doi:10.1177/009365092019004002
Ryan, E. B., Meredith, S. D., MacLean, M. J., & Orange, J. B. (1995). Changing the way
we talk with elders: Promoting health using the communication enhancement model.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 41, 89–107. doi:10.2190/
FP05-FM8V-0Y9F-53FX
Ryff, C. D. (1991). Possible selves in adulthood and old age: A tale of shifting horizons.
Psychology and Aging, 6, 286–295. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.6.2.286
Seefeldt, C., Jantz, R. K., Galper, A., & Serock, K. (1977). Using pictures to explore
children’s attitudes toward the elderly. Gerontologist, 17, 506–512. doi:10.1093/
geront/17.6.506 17.6.506
Silverstein, M., & Long, J. D. (1998). Trajectories of grandparents’ perceived solidarity
with adult grandchildren: A growth curve analysis over 23 years. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 60, 912–923. doi:10.2307/353634
Smith, J,. & Freund, A. M. (2002). The dynamics of possible selves in old age. Journals of
Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57, P492–P500. doi:10.1093/geronb/57.6.P492
Soliz, J. (2007). Communicative predictors of a shared family identity: Comparison of
grandchildren’s perceptions of family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents.
Journal of Family Communication, 7, 177–194. doi:10.1080/15267430701221636
Soliz, J., & Harwood, J. (2006). Shared family identity, age salience, and intergroup
contact: Investigation of the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Communication
Monographs, 73, 87–107. doi:10.1080/03637750500534388
Soliz, J., & Rittenour, C. E. (2012). Family as an intergroup arena. In H. Giles (Ed.), The
handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 331–343). New York, NY: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203148624
Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2015). Assessment of intergenerational communication and
relationships. Educational Gerontology, 41, 41–52. doi:10.1080/03601277.2014.9
12454
18 FOWLER AND & ZORN

Taipale, S. (2019). Intergenerational connections in digital families. Springer.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11947-8
Taylor, A. C., Fisackerly, B. L., Mauren, E. R., & Taylor, K. D. (2013). “Grandma, tell
me another story”: Family narratives and their impact on young adult development.
Marriage & Family Review, 49(5), 367–390. doi:10.1080/01494929.2012.762450
Taylor, B. C. (1992). Elderly identity in conversation: Producing frailty. Communication
Research, 19, 493–515. doi:10.1177/009365092019004006
Uhlenberg, P. (1993). Demographic change and kin relationships in later life. Annual
review of gerontology and geriatrics, 13, 219–238. doi:10.1891/argg.13.1
Uhlenberg, P. (1996). Mortality decline in the twentieth century and supply of kin over
the life course. Gerontologist, 36, 681–685. doi:10.1093/geront/36.5.681
van Gaalen, R., & Deerenberg, I. (2014). More old-age pensioners, but the number who
are living together with their adult children remains stable. Retrieved from https://
www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2014/27/more-old-age-pensioners-but-the-number-
who-are-living-together-with-their-adult-children-remains-stable. Centraal Bureau
voor de Statistiek.
Williams, K., Kemper, S., & Hummert, M. L. (2003). Improving nursing home com-
munication: An intervention to reduce elderspeak. Gerontologist, 43, 242–247.
doi:10.1093/geront/43.2.242
Williams, A., Ota, H., Giles, H., Pierson, H. D., Gallois, C., Ng, S.-H., … Harwood,
J. (1997). Young people’s beliefs about intergenerational communication: An
initial cross-cultural comparison. Communication Research, 24, 370–393.
doi:10.1177/009365097024004003

Note
1. That is, simultaneous aliveness, not coresidence.