**1. Introduction**

Life satisfaction, the perceptions of one's quality of life, is an important psychological variable shaping overall wellbeing. Important variables in work environments that may be related to life satisfaction are experiencing age-based discrimination, perceiving discrimination as prevalent (how often one receives maltreatment or disrespect [1]), knowing that popular age-related negative stereotypes exist in the workplace, and an intergenerational work climate, as well as job engagement. In the university setting, life satisfaction has been related to job satisfaction, mobbing, time pressures, academic performance, and relative income [2].

Ageism in the academic setting is both overt and covert [3]. For example, studies of ageism in academia have found that younger colleagues may patronize older faculty, particularly women [4]. Older women faculty are also more likely to be excluded or subjected to "mom-ism," while younger women faculty are more likely to be viewed as more committed, productive, and energetic [5–7]. However, studies that have examined life satisfaction and ageism-related variables in a university setting are rare.

Discrimination against older workers, like other forms of discrimination, is a serious social and human rights concern. Ageism, a widespread form of prejudice, is a devastating social phenomenon that has not been widely acknowledged and researched. Ageism is defined as holding stereotypical, prejudicial, and discriminatory attitudes against individuals or groups simply because of their age [8]. Unlike racism and sexism, ageism is often seen as "normal", particularly in the workplace [8], something that is taken for granted. It is a form of discrimination not often discussed in the workplace or elsewhere. As people live

**Citation:** McConatha, J.T.; Kumar, V.K.; Magnarelli, J. Ageism, Job Engagement, Negative Stereotypes, Intergenerational Climate, and Life Satisfaction among Middle-Aged and Older Employees in a University Setting. *IJERPH* **2022**, *19*, 7554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19137554

Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou

Received: 16 May 2022 Accepted: 18 June 2022 Published: 21 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

longer, healthier lives, they also remain in the workplace longer [9]; however, a majority (64%) of older workers, particularly female workers, report experiencing or witnessing age discrimination in the workplace [10,11], with some studies indicating that over 80% of women over 50 report having experienced age-related discrimination [3].

The number of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) complaints filed by those older than age 55 has steadily increased since 2000, during which their numbers have grown in the workplace [12,13]. Older workers report feeling that their contributions are unacknowledged, and they feel left out of decision-making and planning functions [14]. Ageist attitudes result in fewer work opportunities, training, promotions, and retention [15–17]. An AARP [15] survey revealed that older respondents who reported age-related discrimination reported having experienced negative remarks concerning their older age from a colleague or supervisor, not being hired for a job, being passed over for a promotion or another advancement opportunity, and being laid off, fired, or forced out of a job. This especially seems to be the case for women. The Bureau of Labor Statistics [18] predicted that by 2024, there will be twice as many women workers over the age of 55 in the labor force as those women between the ages of 16 and 24. In addition, as the number of older women in the workforce has increased, the number of age discrimination complaints filed has increased. In 1990, men filed nearly twice as many ADEA complaints as women; however, in 2010, more women filed complaints about experiencing age bias than men for the first time [12]. This trend seems to be continuing, with more women filing age discrimination complaints each year. Moreover, most reports of age bias in 1990 were from workers between the ages of 40 and 54, but in 2017, workers between the ages of 55 and 64 filed the most age discrimination complaints. The percentage of charges filed by workers aged 65 and older in 2017 was twice what it was in 1990 [11,12]. Often struggling silently, older workers tend not to discuss their mistreatment [19]. An AARP [15] survey revealed that only 3% of respondents who experienced age discrimination made an official complaint—indicating that the problem is significantly more widespread than documented.

Ageist treatment has numerous significant negative social and psychological implications for older workers. It increases stress, negatively impacts self-worth, and can lead to the alienation and isolation of older workers. Fernandez-Ballesteros et al. [20], reviewing the literature on the effects of ageism, indicated that older adults tend to suffer many negative (physical, social, mental) outcomes because of ageism—perceiving age-related discrimination and negative age-related stereotypes and prejudices. In their large sample study in three countries: Mexico, Germany, and Spain, they found that perceived discrimination correlated significantly with life satisfaction in Spain (*r* = −0.324, *p* < 0.01) and Mexico (*r* = −0.319, *p* < 0.01), but not in Germany (*r* = −0.091).

Firzly et al. [21] observed that workplaces free of age-based stereotypes are associated with higher levels of worker satisfaction and decreased intention to retire. The perception that coworkers and colleagues hold negative attitudes about older workers may have important consequences for both younger and older workers and the organization. Perceived ageism, discrimination, and age-based stereotypes are associated with reduced self-esteem, employment opportunities because of biases in hiring decisions [22], job satisfaction [23,24], and work engagemen<sup>t</sup> [25].

The results of a meta-analysis [26] indicate that age-based negative stereotype threats about competence held by older workers can negatively impact their memory (*d* = 0.21) and cognitive performance (*d* = 0.68), and these effects remain over different sex and age groups. Furthermore, there is evidence for greater vulnerability when induced by stereotype threats (*d* = 0.52) than when induced by facts (*d* = 0.09). Jang et al. [1] argued that perceived discrimination is unpleasant and stressful and leads to reduced feelings of wellbeing. Using a large sample of 45–74-year-old adults, they found evidence for not only the direct effects of perceived discrimination on feelings of wellbeing, but also for indirect effects through reducing a sense of control for both positive and negative affect. Yao et al. [27] found that perceived discrimination has a direct negative impact on the life satisfaction of older adults and an indirect impact that occurs through identity and community sense. Redman and

Snape [28] found, in a sample of police officers, that perceived age discrimination was negatively associated with their job and life satisfaction, power and prestige associated with their jobs, and commitment. In their study, job involvement did not have a significant correlation with life satisfaction. They concluded that discrimination is a significant stressor with severe psychological consequences.

Levy [29,30] formulated the Stereotype Embodiment Theory (SET), which holds that age-based discrimination, popular negative stereotypes about older people, and negative self-perceptions held by older people about their aging can have serious effects on the health and wellbeing of older individuals. Levy et al. [30] noted that there has been extensive research across five continents that yielded findings consistent with predictions from the SET theory that ageism negatively impacts the health of older individuals. Levy et al. [30] found that the health care costs associated with negative self-perceptions of aging were much higher than those associated with negative age stereotypes, followed by those associated with age discrimination; adjusted for age and sex, the "excess cost was \$11.1 billion for age discrimination, \$28.5 billion for negative age stereotypes, and \$33.7 billion for negative self-perceptions of aging" [30] (p. 178).

A variable of interest to the present study was intergenerational contact. Hanrahan et al. [22] concluded, from a review of studies (e.g., [23]), that positive intergenerational contact can help ameliorate the negative impact of ageism, which in turn can promote intergroup harmony among older and younger workers. King and Bryant [31] found a correlation (*r* = 0.58) between intergenerational climate at work and job satisfaction in their Study 2. A recent Canadian study by Firzly et al. [21] found, contrary to their expectations, that perceiving that the workplace intergenerational climate was positive was associated with decreased awareness of ageist practices; they explained this unexpected finding by suggesting that if things are going well for them, then it is also good for the older workers. However, consistent with their expectations, the intergenerational climate was associated with increased job satisfaction, and sharing and donating knowledge behaviors. Such behaviors were, in turn, associated with greater awareness of ageism against older workers and greater job satisfaction.

Job engagemen<sup>t</sup> or work engagemen<sup>t</sup> has also been explored as a work-related motivational construct. Rich et al. [32] developed an instrument to measure the three dimensions proposed by Kahn [33]: physical (intensity of effort), cognitive (mindfulness, vigilance, attention to work), and emotional (affect associated with work) energies devoted to their work. They found their scale to be significantly correlated with measures of job involvement, job satisfaction, value congruence (meaningfulness of work), intrinsic motivation, task performance, and other variables. Although Rich et al. [32] did not examine the relationship of their job engagemen<sup>t</sup> scale with life satisfaction, there are prior studies that sugges<sup>t</sup> that the two constructs are significantly correlated (e.g., [34–36]).

Given that work and the work environment constitute a major portion of one's life, age-based discrimination, perceiving age discrimination, and knowing that popular negative stereotypes about an age-related decline in abilities exist should have a bearing on how satisfied older people feel about their lives. Few studies seem to have addressed the association of ageism-related variables of discrimination and negative stereotypes with life satisfaction. Thus, the present study was designed to examine whether experiencing age-related discrimination, negative age-related stereotypes regarding declining abilities due to age, job engagemen<sup>t</sup> (cognitive, physical, and emotional), and workplace intergenerational climate in terms of positive intergenerational affect and workplace intergenerational inclusiveness correlated with life satisfaction in a university setting.

Based on the studies discussed previously, it was expected that faculty and staff in middle and later adulthood (age 50 plus) who (a) have experienced lower levels of discrimination are more likely to report experiencing higher levels of life satisfaction, (b) perceive a lower prevalence of negative stereotypes about aging in the workplace are more likely to report higher levels of life satisfaction, (c) perceive higher levels of intergenerational positive affect and inclusiveness are more likely to report higher levels of life satisfaction,

and (d) are more physically (effortful working), emotionally (enjoyment), and cognitively engaged in their work are more likely to report higher levels of life satisfaction. On an exploratory basis, the incremental and unique variance accounted for by these selected job-related variables beyond the demographic variables of age, sex, and education through hierarchical regression analysis was also explored.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Participants and Procedures*

An email containing a link to an online survey was sent to 1015 instructional faculty members and 805 staff and administrators at a mid-sized university in southeast Pennsylvania. The participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and there was no penalty for not completing the survey, and that their responses were being recorded anonymously. After the participants read the informed consent form approved by the university's Institutional Board, they were able to continue to the questionnaires, if they consented.

Although 364 individuals responded to the survey, because of omissions and/or declining to answer some items, the numbers of respondents varied for different questions. Analysis was restricted to 115–117 midlife and older employees ( ≥50 years of age) who responded to the questionnaire. The respondents ranged in age from 50 to 79 ( *M* = 59.57), with 77 females and 40 males, 78 instructional faculty, four administrators, and 35 staff members. Level of Education was coded in five ordinal categories: High School Graduate (including some college, but no degree) (*n* = 9), Associate Degree (*n* = 6), Bachelors (*n* = 15), Master's (*n* = 23), and Doctoral/Professional (including JD, MD) (*n* = 64). Most respondents identified themselves as White, non-Hispanic (*n* = 93). Few identified as African American/Black (*n* = 5), Asian (*n* = 2), Hispanic or Latino (*n* = 3), More than one ethnicity (*n* = 2), Middle Eastern (*n* = 1), and declined/omitted (*n* = 11)
