Subjects of both sexes and two age groups, one ranging from 19 to 30 years and the other

from 56 to 88 years, individually made ratings of the attractiveness and age of 12

precategorized artists' drawings of human faces. Significant age group effects were found in
age and attractiveness ratings. The findings were viewed from the perspectives of both
psychoanalytic and Adlerian theory, the former dealing with the ego's regulation of pleasure
and reality issues in the preservation of ego integrity and the latter with compensatory striving.
Key Words: Attractiveness, Age perception, Psychoanalytic theory, Adlerian theory

Mark Wernick, MEd2 and Guy J. Manaster, PhD:

The study of developmental change in face perceptions has not been undertaken in a systematic way.
Inquiries into the relationships among perceptions
of face and body features are usually cross-sectional
studies at unitary age levels. For example, Kagan
(1970a, 1970b) studied patterns of attention in human
infants to faces and face facsimiles. Studies on interpersonal attraction (Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Walster et al., 1966) and physical attraction in impression
formation (Miller, 1970) do not investigate the developmental implications of their effects. Other face
perception studies have explored affective orientation in the structuring of perceptions of faces (Rothbart & Birrell, 1977) and visual versus verbal information in impression formation (Hagiwara, 1975).
Seefeldt et al. (1977) employed drawings of male
faces to explore children's attitudes toward the
elderly.
Two studies which do raise particular questions
about the importance of developmental changes in
perceptions of human faces are those of Cross and
Cross (1971) and Adams and Huston (1975). These
investigators sought to ascertain the relative effect of
age differences on the perception of faces. Cross and
Cross (1971) found no age group effects_ between
young (age 7-17) and adult (age 28-57, X = 36.0)
samples rating stimulus photographs, but they did
not include a sample of elderly subjects in their
study. Adams and Huston (1975) used an older sample (mean age 66.3 years) and found that the elderly
stereotyped middle-aged stimulus photographs in
more favorable ways than did young adults.
It could be expectedand is hypothesized here
that the elderly have greater reason to report perceptions of faces significantly at variance with such re1
The authors thank the University Research Institute, University of Texas
at Austin, for the funds to develop and produce the drawings used in this
study, and Diane Linimon and Richard Poe for their assistance.
2
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Educational Psychology, University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
3
Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX 78712.

408

ports by the young and middle-aged, at least in part

because the young and middle aged are not faced as
imminently with bodily decline as are the elderly,
although other reasons may also prevail. This idea
can be developed from Freud's (1923/1963) statement
that "the ego is first and foremost a body ego; it is not
merely a surface entity but it is itself the projection of
a surface" (p. 16) namely, the body surface, of
which the face is an important, and possibly the most
important, representation. As this surface alters in
form and nature through time, perceptions of it, particularly perceptions of the face, can be expected to
undergo parallel change, given that the face as an
important body surface is also an important component of the developing and perceiving ego. With
respect to the question of the direction of that
change Freud (1923/1963) described the ego as having
an executive status which sometimes functions to
subordinate libidinal strivings for pleasure to a reality
principle grounded in the social context and conscience. An aging ego monitoring the deterioration
of its own bodily origins could be expected to subordinate a comfortable conformity to body perceptions, inherited from a youth emphasizing such
perceptions, to a reality that "life is for the living,"
including the aged living. A reassessment or alteration of face perceptions would help the aged to meet
the requirements of living with ego integrity, a maturational and genetic complement to development
and aging (Erikson, 1950), as intact as possible in the
midst of the body's gradual change. This would occur
by freeing the ego to "reassign" pleasurable assessments or by freeing it to become receptive to new or
different sources of pleasurable input, thereby aiding the reality testing function of ego.
Adlerian theory also lends itself to an expectation
of altered human face perceptions among the elderly. As fundamental compensatory striving, Adler
(1956) posits striving to overcome a "felt minus" in
order to establish a "felt plus" in a particular area.
Although this idea was conceived primarily as an
explanation for motivation in early development and,
The Gerontologist

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ at BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS on May 1, 2012

Age and the Perception of Age and

Attractiveness1

originally, in response to organ inferiority, Adler

modified his view so that it could be expanded to
human development throughout the life cycle. Thus,
one might expect the elderly to compensate for the
felt minus of their deteriorating bodily features and
capabilities by altering perceptions of aging and body
features.
The hypothesis that the perception of face stimuli
is related to age, generated from both the Adlerian
and psychoanalytic perspectives, also reflects the
conventional folk wisdom that what is prized by
youth is indulged by the wiser aged. More specifically, differences in the perception of face stimuli precategorized according to age and attractiveness
should diminish with advancing age. The following
investigation tested this hypothesis.

white paper. A number of psychology graduate students and faculty informally provided their subjective impressions of the age and attractiveness of the
drawings as well as opinions about the correspondence between their impressions and the intended
age and attractiveness categories. Ultimately the
validity and consistency of the categories of age and
attractiveness were measured by the statistical correspondence between the intended categories and the
ratings made by respondents.
Procedure

Vol. 24, No. 4, 1984

409

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ at BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS on May 1, 2012

The data were gathered from the sample collectively in the aforementioned groups. Prospective participants were told that a study was being conducted of
body perceptions throughout the life cycle, for
which volunteers were needed from a young age
group and from an older age group. Volunteers were
Method
then given a rating form with a 7-point Likert-type
scale for each of the 12 stimulus drawings of human
Sample
faces. The ratings corresponding to numbers 1
One hundred thirty-eight persons of both sexes
through 7 were, respectively, beautiful, very attracparticipated in this study: 84 young raters, ranging in
tive, somewhat attractive, average, somewhat unage from 19 to 30, with a mean age of 22.11 years, and attractive, very unattractive, and ugly. The rating
54 older raters, ranging in age from 56 to 88, with a
form also included a space for the participant's age
mean age of 70.65 years. The young raters were
estimate of the face in the drawing. Almost all raters
drawn entirely from undergraduate classes in educasaw the drawings flashed via transparencies on an
tional psychology, a required course for education
overhead screen, although a small number saw the
majors, in which female students outnumbered male
identical drawings in an 8"x10" folder when the ratstudents by a large margin. The older raters were
ing situation disallowed use of an overhead projecdrawn from six different senior activity centers lotor. An unannounced rough maximum of about 30cated in Austin, Texas, where female volunteers
40 seconds was allotted for each joint age and attracagain outnumbered male volunteers by a large martiveness rating, but almost all subjects completed
gin. This was due, in part, to the fact that females
their ratings well before this time period had elapsed.
outnumber males in this age group. The raters repreThe first stimulus drawing was changed after ratsented all socioeconomic groups, three racial
ings by 45 young and 6 older subjects indicated that it
groups, and a wide variety of occupations and levels
was eliciting age ratings too high for its intended
of educational attainment.
category. The substitute drawing proved to be effecAlthough, for a sample of this size gathered in this
tive in eliciting appropriate ratings. This substitution
way, no claim can be made to randomness or reprewas taken into account in the data analysis, which
sentativeness, the two age subsamples were chosen
omitted the 51 ratings of the replaced drawing.
with the aim of yielding comparability by sex and
Results
similarity in socioeconomic background and race. It
was believed that the population in teacher educaValidity and Consistency Age Estimates
tion classes would approximate the female-dominant
aged population as well as provide a spread of socioThe mean age and attractiveness ratings for 12 ageeconomic and racial background which could be
sex-attractiveness drawings are displayed in Table 1.
generally matched by sampling from senior activity
Using f-tests of mean age estimates for the three
centers drawing from neighborhoods of different
drawing age categories, all comparisons of youngSES and racial concentrations.
old, young-middle, and middle-old drawings for
both young and older raters differed at p < .0001,
Stimulus Material
indicating adequate discrimination among the pictures' intended age categories. Ratings made by the
Two university artists were commissioned to make
young group all conformed to the intended cate12 drawings of human faces (Figure 1): 6 male and 6
gories; their mean age estimates for young faces
female, 6 attractive and 6 unattractive, and 4 young
adult (20s), 4 middle aged (40-50), and 4 old (over 65). ranged from 22.13 to 29.97; for middle-aged faces,
from 40.66 to 49.98; and for old faces, from 59.33 to
The artists were instructed to keep irregular features
70.02. Thus it can be concluded that construct validity
to a minimum; avoid the use of glasses, braces, or
existed for the young, middle, and old facial cateother artifacts on the face; avoid extremes of beauty
gories for young raters.
or ugliness; and give each face as neutral an expression as possible. Hairstyles were conventional,
Ratings by the older group also conformed with the
although one old male was depicted as bald. The
intended categories, although for young and middleoriginal drawings were made in pencil on 16"x20"
aged drawings the age estimates were elevated rela-

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ at BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS on May 1, 2012

Figure 1. Stimulus drawings. (Drawings coincide with descriptions by number in Table 1, read left to right across and then down rows.)

410

The Gerontologist

00

K2

8.44

6.13

3.11

10.34

11.30

5.46

7.22

11.22

6.24

6.93

38.53
n = 47
32.64
n = 53
61.54
n = 52
52.74
n = 53
66.57
n = 53
52.09
n = 53
43.35
n = 52
55.52
n = 50
62.33
n = 52
33.40
n = 50
38.62
n = 50
47.94
n = 47

1.14

4.44
n=43
3.45
n = 84
4.11
n = 84
5.99
n = 84
6.25
n = 84
6.09
n = 84
3.23
n = 83
5.41
n = 82
3.47
n = 53
2.48
n = 82
6.36
n = 83
4.07
n = 81
1.10

.67

.89

.98

1.15

.90

.86

.79

.74

1.03

1.12

Rating

SD

Age

Rating

Attractiveness

12.46

12.93

13.49

12.18

12.40

11.03

12.72

11.71

10.48

10.88

9.75

12.81

SD

Old

3.98
n = 47
4.53
n = 53
4.74
n = 53
5.44
n = 52
5.98
n = 53
5.53
n = 53
3.28
n = 51
4.82
n = 51
4.22
n = 50
3.38
n = 49
5.88
n = 59
4.38
n = 48

Rating

1.21

1.36

1.38

1.36

1.35

1.39

1.32

1.08

1.18

1.29

1.68

1.22

SD

Attractiveness

Age

34.11
n = 90
28.29
n = 141
63.46
n = 140
48.47
n = 141
68.84
n = 141
50.77
n = 141
41.25
n = 139
60.46
n = 137
60.51
n = 139
26.23
n = 136
32.08
n = 137
43.70
n = 133

Rating

A = attractive, U = unattractive, F = female, Ma = male, Y = young, M = middle aged, O = old

12. MAF

11. YUMa

10. YAMa

9. OAF

8. OUF

7. MAMa

6. MUF

5. OUMa

4. MUMa

3. OAMa

5.11

7.89

29.28
n = 43
25.61
n = 84
64.50
n = 82
45.82
n = 84
70.02
n = 84
49.99
n = 84
40.06
n = 83
63.48
n = 83
59.34
n = 83
22.13
n = 82
28.45
n = 83
41.49
n = 82

1. YUF

2. YAF

SD

Rating

Drawing

Age

Young

Table 1 . Mean Age and Attractiveness Ratings of 12 Stimulus Drawings

10.44

10.39

10.10

10.98

12.13

8.10

9.64

11.39

8.69

8.75

7.91

11.65

SD

1.20
4.20
n = 90
3.86
n = 141
4.33
n = 139
5.77
n = 140
6.16
n = 141
5.89
n = 141
3.23
n = 138
5.20
n = 137
3.74
n = 137
2.79
n = 135
6.19
n = 136
4.20
n = 133

1.15

1.00

1.16

1.18

1.25

1.09

1.08

.92

.96

1.17

1.44

SD
Rating

Attractiveness

Combined

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ at BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS on May 1, 2012

tive to estimates made by the young group. Means of

young faces ranged from 32.64 to 38.62, and middleaged faces ranged from means of 43.34 to 52.73. In an
interesting reversal of the pattern of rating pictures of
young and middle-aged faces older than did the
young raters, however, older raters rated pictures of
old faces younger than did young raters, with mean
age estimates ranging from 55.52 to 66.56. Despite
these relative differences between age estimates of
young and older raters, the desired differences between intended age categories were also apparent
for the older raters and confirmed the construct
validity of the age-face stimuli. Their consistency in
eliciting the intended age estimates was also upheld,
since significant differences were obtained across
both age groups of raters.

Table 2. Breakdown of Compared Age and

Attractiveness Ratings by Rater Group
Mean
Paired
Attractiveness
Ratings

df

Attractiveness Ratings
Young
Young
2.95-5.89
Attractive-Unattractive

81

26.18*

3.64-6.06

80

29.80*

3.79-5.85

79

22.27*

3.92-5.06

47

5.23*

Attractive-Unattractive
Old

3.80-5.47

46

10.14*

Attractive-Unattractive

4.44-5.44

48

5.70*

23.89-28.81

81

7.70*

Attractive-Unattractive
Old

40.65-47.74

81

9.58*

Attractive-Unattractive
Older
Young
Attractive-Unattractive
Middle Aged
Attractive-Unattractive

61.85-66.69

82

4.94*

32.62-38.29

48

5.33*

44.82-51.05

46

4.72*

Old
Attractive-Unattractive

61.97-60.94

48

-.91

Rater

Group

Middle Aged

Older
Young
Attractive-Unattractive

Validity and Consistency Attractiveness Estimates

As indicated in Table 1, in the combined ratings of
young and older raters, 10 of the 12 ratings of the
stimulus drawings conformed to the intended categories of attractiveness-unattractiveness, using
scores below 4 as a cutoff for attractive faces and
above 5 for unattractive faces. Drawing number 3,
intended as an old attractive male, and drawing number 12, intended as a middle-aged attractive female,
receiving ratings of 4.34 and 4.20, slightly over the
cutoff. These high means were also found for the
young group alone (4.11 and 4.07, respectively).
For the older raters, 4 of the 6 intended attractive
face stimuli elicited ratings over 4. These ratings fell
in the area between "average" and "somewhat unattractive," but they were close to the cutoff point
and discrepant enough from ratings of unattractive
face counterparts to merit Mests of the differences
between the ratings of attractive and unattractive
faces. The mean combined rating of attractive faces
was 3.66, and the mean combined rating of unattractive faces was 5.53, a difference which is significant at
p < .001. By raters' age groups, the mean attractiveness and unattractiveness ratings were, respectively,
3.46 and 5.92, p < .001 by young raters and 3.79 and
5.15, p < .001, by older raters.
A more detailed analysis of the attractiveness and
age ratings given by both age groups is presented in
Table 2. Comparisons of attractiveness ratings between attractiveness categories were made within
each stimulus age category and by young and old
raters. The discrimination between attractiveness
categories was upheld within each age category and
between each attractiveness category for all raters.
These differences confirmed the construct validity of
the attractiveness stimuli for all attractive and unattractive face pictures in combination and for attractive faces and unattractive faces within each of the
three stimulus age groups (Table 2).
Age by Attractiveness Ratings
Comparisons of age ratings between each attractiveness category within each age category (Table 2)
revealed significantly discrepant ratings. Unattractive faces were uniformly and significantly perceived

Middle Aged

Age Ratings
Young
Young
Attractive-Unattractive
Middle Aged

*p < .001

by all raters to be older, except that no age difference

appeared in ratings by older respondents of old
attractive and unattractive faces.
A comparison of attractiveness ratings between
age categories showed that young faces were uniformly rated as more attractive than old faces by
young and older raters singly and in combination.
The young rated young faces as significantly more
attractive than middle-aged and old faces, but differences in attractiveness between middle-aged and old
faces were not apparent among the young raters. No
difference appeared between attractiveness ratings
of young and middle-aged faces by older raters, but
they also rated young and middle-aged faces as significantly more attractive than old faces.
In a comparison of attractiveness ratings of each
stimulus age category across both attractiveness
categories (i.e., with both attractiveness categories
combined), young and older subjects did not differ in
their ratings of the general attractiveness of young,
middle-aged, and old faces.
Hypothesis
Group differences in age and attractiveness ratings.
The general hypothesis that the elderly would

412

The Gerontologist

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ at BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS on May 1, 2012

Attractive-Unattractive
Old
Attractive-Unattractive

Table 3. Rater Group Ratings by Stimulus Category

Young
Middle aged
Old
Attractive
Unattractive
a

n
n
c
df
*p
b

Young3

Older 6

ms

25.79
44.11
64.30
3.46
5.90

33.53
47.73
60.98
4.01
5.34

29.66
34.74
53.86
.50
.36

56.51*
10.53*
5.71*
16.97*
25.04*

= 77
= 44
= 1,119
< .001
Table 4. Breakdown of Rater Group Ratings
by Stimulus Category

Stimulus
Category

Rater Group Means

Young

Older

ms

Age Ratings*
Attractive
Young
Middle aged
Old

23.81
40.54
61.97

31.28
44.92
61.44

32.66
45.30
67.53

50.17*
12.43*
.11

Unattractive
Young
Middle aged
Old

28.66
47.73
66.72

37.42
50.88
60.66

52.15
50.71
75.39

43.20*
5.75*
14.26*

Attractiveness Ratings6
Attractive
Young
Middle aged

Old
Unattractive
Young
Middle aged

Old

2.94
3.65
3.80

3.88
3.77
4.44

.96
.67
.81

26.77*
.65
14.53*

5.88
6.07
5.87

5.08
5.54
5.50

.74
.64
.68

24.26*
12.56*
5.94*

Young n = 81, old n = 46; df = 1,125

Young n = 78, old n = 45; df = 1,121
*p < .01

related to the stimulus faces merit comment. Unattractive faces were perceived to be older in all cases
except for old faces rated by older respondents (see
Table 2). It may be that in this particular set of stimuli
the unattractive faces were drawn to look older than
the attractive faces, but it may also be that people
weight unattractive faces with additional age. The
second aspect of the stimulus faces meriting comment is that young faces were rated as more attractive
than old faces by both young and older respondents.
A general conclusion can be drawn that attractiveness, even if not prized equally by the young and old,
is perceived equally by the two age groups and is
attributed most to the young and least to the old.
The results of this study partly contradict Cross and
Cross's (1971) conclusion that in ratings of attractiveness of faces, sex and race, but not age, of the raters
and age, sex, and race of the face judged will probably influence response. Sex differences were not
found, but strong age differences, as hypothesized,

Preference Analysis of Stimulus Sex

No differences in age or attractiveness ratings by
sex of rater were found. The only age group difference revealed that older raters made older age estimates of male faces than did young raters. All age and
sex groups rated female faces as more attractive than
male faces.
Discussion
Although the findings support the hypothesis, they
need to be replicated and idiosyncracies in the stimulus faces must be further understood. Two patterns
Vol. 24, No. 4, 1984

Rater Group Means

Stimulus
Category

413

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ at BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS on May 1, 2012

collapse the differences as perceived by the young

on the dimensions of age and attractiveness by compensating for the loss of previously perceived or
valued assets was tested by a multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA), correcting for a significant intercorrelation between the ratings (Table 3).
The MANOVA reveals significant differences in all
of the expected directions between young and old
raters for all categories of age and attractiveness. The
older participants rated unattractive faces as less unattractive and attractive faces as less attractive than
did the younger raters. The older raters also rated
young and middle-aged faces as older and rated old
faces as younger than did the young raters. This finding confirms the hypothesis that the older raters, in
making judgments about age and attractiveness, collapse differences in comparison to, and as perceived
by, the young on these dimensions.
Two separate MANOVAs which supported the hypothesis were conducted to test for group differences within each stimulus age and attractiveness
category. As displayed in Table 4, unattractive young
and middle-aged faces were judged older by the older raters than by the young raters, and old unattractive faces were judged younger by older raters than
by young raters. This is in keeping with the general
trend among older raters to judge all old faces as
younger and all young and middle-aged faces as older than the corresponding judgments of young raters. Older raters also made higher age ratings of
young and middle-aged attractive faces than did
young raters, in keeping with the same trend, but
differences between young and older raters on their
age estimates of old attractive faces were nonsignificant. Thus the variance between young and older
raters in their age ratings of old faces was accounted
for entirely by the older respondents' ratings of unattractive faces.
Table 4 also presents group differences in attractiveness ratings within each of the stimulus age and
attractiveness categories. It can be seen that young
respondents gave both young and old attractive faces
higher attractiveness ratings than did older respondents. Age group differences for middle-aged attractive faces were nonsignificant but in the same direction. Young respondents gave unattractive faces
higher unattractiveness ratings than did older respondents for all categories of unattractive faces.

pensatory striving. This study suggests that developmental changes in the perception of aging and attractiveness may be part of these processes.
References
Adams, C , & Huston, T. (1975). Social perception of middle-aged persons
varying in physical attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 11, 657658.
Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. (H. L. Ansbacher
& R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.) New York: Basic Books.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7). New York:
Academic Press.
Cross, J., & Cross, J. (1971). Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial
beauty. Developmental Psychology, 5, 433-439.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton.
Freud, S. (1963). The ego and the id (I Riviere, Trans.; J. Strachey, Ed.). New
York: W. W. Norton. (Originally published, 1923.)
Hagiwara, S. (1975). Visual versus verbal information in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 692-698.
.Kagan, J. (1970). Attention and psychological change in the young child.
Science, 170, 826-832. (a)
Kagan, J. (1970). The determinants of attention in the young infant. American
Scientist, 58, 298-306. (b)
Kalish, R. (1979). The new ageism and the failure model: A polemic. The
Cerontologist, 19, 398-402.
Kearl, M. C. (1981-82). An inquiry into the positive personal and social
effects of old age stereotypes among the elderly. International journal of
Aging and Human Development, 14, 277-290.
Miller, A. C. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation.
Psychonomic Science, 19, 241-243.
Rothbart, M., & Birrell, P. (1977). Attitude and the perception of faces.
Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 209-215.
Seefeldt, C , Jantz, R. K., Calper, A., & Serock, K. (1977). Using pictures to
explore children's attitudes toward the elderly. The Cerontologist, 17,
506-512.
Walster, E. H., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5, 508-516.

R. I. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,

RETARDATION AND HOSPITALS
GENERAL HOSPITAL, RHODE ISLAND MEDICAL CENTER
MEDICAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR
General Hospital, Rhode Island Medical Center, is accepting applications for the position of Medical Program Director.
The Hospital is a 680-bed chronic disease hospital, JCAH accredited facility with acute services and specialized treatment in
Physical Rehabilitation, Oncology, Respiratory, Psychogeriatrics, In-patient and Out-patient Geriatric Center.
Qualifications for this position include graduation from an approved medical school of recognized standing supplemented by
advanced study in the field of Gerontology, Internal Medicine, Family Practice, Rehabilitation Medicine and a minimum of five (5)
years administrative experience and/or supervisory experience in a large hospital setting. The Medical Program Director will be
responsible for the overall clinical and administrative direction of the medical services unit which include knowledge of budgeting,
experience in Joint Commission and Hospital Accreditation and knowledge of labor relations; scheduling a staff of 46 fulltime and 98
consultant physicians.
At the time of appointment, the selected candidate must meet established requirements of the Rhode Island State Department
of Health, licensed to practice medicine in Rhode Island, Board Eligible, Board Certified preferred.
Excellent salary and fringe benefits. Opportunity to become part of the faculty of the School of Medicine, Brown University.
Please send your resume, complete with salary history, in confidence to: Mr. Richard H. Freeman, Associate Director, Division
of Hospitals & Community Rehabilitative Services, Chairman, SEARCH COMMITTEE, 600 New London Avenue, Cranston,
Rhode Island 02920.

An Equal Opportunity Employer

414

The Cerontologist

Downloaded from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/ at BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS on May 1, 2012

were found: older raters diminished age and attractiveness differences reported by young raters.
The results of this study might also be explained
within the framework of ageist stereotypes (Kalish,
1979). However, the findings do not fit a description
of ageist stereotypes held by the aged as detrimental
to the aged; rather, the results more aptly fit the
model of the positive personal and social effects of
these stereotypes among the elderly proposed by
Kearl (1981-82), although this fit is by no means exact.
In a strict sense, the differences found may result
from generational rather than developmental differences, and the only way to correct for such a problem
would be through a longitudinal study. But, if these
results should be generalizable, the confirmation of
the general hypothesis does lend support to the
psychoanalytic explanation of ego integrity as linked
materially to the body and its vicissitudes. It also
supports the Adlerian principle that people are motivated to compensate for adversely experienced vicissitudes. Reassessment of perceptions as part of the
individual's adaptation to bodily change is not in
itself necessarily a process of preserving ego integrity
or an effective compensation. Such reassessment of
perceptions is more likely a symptom of the wish for
compensation and ego preservation, which in turn
calls attention to the singular needs of the aged in a
way that may or may not result in effective compensation and enhancement of ego integrity. The successful reality-testing function of the ego must remain
intact for ego integrity to be preserved; similarly,
social interest must be served in successful com-