This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 29 November 2011, At: 10:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of IntergenerationalRelationshipsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjir20

Intergenerational Dialogue toReduce PrejudiceSusan Kay Fletcher MA aa University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Available online: 26 Sep 2008

To cite this article: Susan Kay Fletcher MA (2007): Intergenerational Dialogue toReduce Prejudice, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 5:1, 6-19

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J194v05n01_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

SCHOLARSHIP

We encourage readers to consider submitting papers that inform us oftheir work and interest in intergenerational program development, re-search, and policy. We welcome papers that reflect how intergenerationalconcepts can be integrated within multiple academic disciplines and cancontribute to collaborative efforts within human service and communitydevelopment initiatives. We look for submissions that examine a varietyof research questions that will provide insights about intergenerational re-lations in formal and informal settings and that explore the social andglobal implications of this growing area of inquiry.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

RESEARCH

Intergenerational Dialogueto Reduce Prejudice:A Conceptual Model

Susan Kay Fletcher, MA

ABSTRACT. Residential segregation has severely limited racial inte-gration in public schools and racial hostility and prejudice continue toexist within society. Studies demonstrate that youth may be unpreparedas future leaders in dealing with the social justice issues of a diverseand global economy. Interventions to promote positive civic participa-tion and mutual understanding between groups are essential ingredi-ents for community building and social renewal. Theory suggests anintergenerational dialogic model may provide an effective framework toreduce prejudice among youth. A conceptual model for an intervention

Susan Kay Fletcher is a doctoral student, University of North Carolina-ChapelHill, NC.

Address correspondence to: Susan Kay Fletcher, School of Social Work, Universityof North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Tate-Turner-Kuralt Building, 301 Pittsboro Street CB#3550, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (E-mail: skfletch@email.unc.edu).

Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol. 5(1) 2007Available online at http://jir.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J194v05n01_02 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

is presented. Descriptions of a pilot program and an elaboration of themodel for future interventions are included. doi:10.1300/J194v05n01_02[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Web-site: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. Allrights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Intergenerational, dialogue, prejudice, race relations,youth

INTRODUCTION

Community relationships once created through mutual understandingand generalized reciprocity are diminishing, making it difficult for diver-gent groups to connect on a meaningful basis (Cummings, Williams, &Ellis, 2002; Kaplan, Henkin, & Kusano, 2002; Putman, 2000). Persistentresidential segregation has severely limited racial integration in publicschools and racial hostility and prejudice continues to exist within society(Orfield & Eaton, 1996). Studies demonstrate youth may be unpreparedas future leaders dealing with the social justice issues of a diverse andglobal economy (Buckingham, 1999; Ellinor & Gerard, 1998; Roker,Player, & Coleman, 1999; Schoem, 2003; Youniss, Bales, Christmas-Best, Diversi, McLaughlin, & Silbereisen, 2002).

Age prejudice is also prevalent in our society (Williams & Nussbaum,2001). Palmore’s (1990) “Facts on Aging Questionnaire” identifiesspecific stereotypes of the elderly including being unhealthy, asexual,ugly, cognitively impaired, useless, isolated, lonely, poor, and depressed.Younger generations also suffer from negative stereotypes due to lack ofcontact with other age groups and often feel patronized and misunder-stood by elders (Giles & Williams, 1994; Williams & Nussbaum, 2001).Ageist attitudes create a vicious cycle by limiting contact, thereby en-couraging the stereotypes.

This paper proposes a conceptual model for an intergenerational,interracial dyadic intervention to reduce bias among youth and decreaseageist attitudes among youth and elders. It begins with a theoretical re-view of the development of intergroup bias and dominant practice par-adigms to reduce bias. An intergenerational dialogic model is thenpresented followed by empirical support for the model. Suggestions asto how the model may be operationalized and evaluated for future inter-ventions are included.

8 JOURNAL OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

LITERATURE REVIEW

Social constructionism is an epistemological position asserting that re-ality is not fixed but known through human experience and interpretation.Individuals are active agents in constructing their social worlds througha process of negotiation with others in the development of shared mean-ing. Social representations are individual interpretations of experiences,interactions, and physical phenomena (Garfinkel, 1967).These interpre-tations, or representations, structure the way individuals and groups areculturally identified and socially positioned, leading to social categoriza-tions (Blumer, 1969; McGowan, 1997).

Social categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wethe-rell, 1987) suggests that individuals organize their beliefs about the socialworld. Categorization is the process people use to understand objects bydetermining commonalities and differences with other known objects.Such categorizations also include people. When individuals classify them-selves with others based on pre-conceived criteria, such as race or age,they maintain a shared categorization or shared social identity. Groupidentities lead to the development of ingroup favoritism and intergroupbias in order to view their group positively. Such bias promotes “us” versus“them” attitudes. Numerous studies indicate the power of social catego-rizations on behavioral, cognitive, and affective reactions to others(Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner,Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Figure 1 illustrates the devel-opment of such bias.

Research 9

Age, race, gender, culture, experiences, history

Social construction of reality

Representations

Social categorizations

Intergroup bias

FIGURE 1. Formation of intergroup bias.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

PREDOMINANT PRACTICE PARADIGMSTO REDUCE PREJUDICE

Allport’s (1979) contact theory has emerged as a predictive theory forthe reduction of intergroup bias. According to Allport, simple contact be-tween divergent groups experiencing intergroup bias may not be suffi-cient to improve relationships. When participants perceive equal statuswithin the contact situation, experience intergroup cooperation, and sharecommon goals, bias may be reduced (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami,2003; Pettigrew, 1998). Allowing time for personal acquaintance to de-velop and learning the historical and cultural background of the “other”also encourages mutual understanding (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Dovidioet al., 2003).

Interracial dialogue has been a predominant practice paradigm toreduce prejudicial attitudes and is grounded in contact theory (Ellinor &Gerard, 1998; Maoz, 2003; Oskamp, 2000; Schoem, 2003). KatherineWalsh (2003) estimates that as of December 2002, there were morethan 266 civic interracial dialogue programs in 46 states and the Dis-trict of Columbia. Although some dialogues have effectively increasedknowledge, communication, and discussion among diverse groups,many are not framed to include the damaging consequences of inequita-ble power arrangements and have actually strengthened prejudicial atti-tudes (Helman, 2002; Schoem, 2003).

A weakness in the dialogue paradigm is that manipulating contact be-tween diverse individuals within a structured context does not take intoaccount the power dynamics of everyday social interactions. Accordingto Dixon and Durrheim (2003), the contact model may neglect “the his-torical and current realities of segregation, realities that continue toshape intergroup contact” and may legitimize “an ideology for defining‘our’ relationships with ‘them’ ” (p. 20). Pettigrew (1998) found per-ceived equal status among participants an important component in re-ducing bias. For interaction to be most effective, power inequalities insociety should not translate into imbalances of power within dialogicalsettings (Walsh, 2002).

Utilizing narratives to challenge social categorizations has been effec-tive in numerous interventions, with and without direct interracial contact(Bell, 2003; Ohsako, 2002; Pennix, 2002). Hearing personal, historicalaccounts of injustice may make it difficult to justify negative racial atti-tudes. “Whites are, in fact, often taken by surprise when confrontedwith alternative scenarios and interpretations of racial experience”

10 JOURNAL OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

(Bell, 2003, p. 5). This approach encourages a more global acceptanceof others and reduces “us” versus “them” ideologies.

INTERGENERATIONAL CONTACTAND INTERVENTIONS

Institutional age barriers created by laws and policies, along withinformal norms and stereotypes, have restricted interaction between in-dividuals across the life course. Dependence upon age-based social in-stitutions is an integral component of western society creating socialroles and expectations for different cohorts (Decker, 1978; Traphagan,1998). Children are separated according to school grade, middle-agedindividuals are expected to engage in work roles, and older peoplespend time in retirement and leisure activities (Riley & Riley, 1994).As a consequence of social policies there are increasingly more age seg-regated programs and social services (Torres-Gil, 2002). Since the so-cial structure of a society greatly determines the nature and extent ofsocial networks available to an individual, an age-delineated societylimits the diversity of available networks (Berkman & Glass, 2002;Hagestad & Dannefer, 2001; Riley & Riley, 2000). Indeed, age segrega-tion creates deficits for all age groups and may be as intractable as racialsegregation (Hagestad & Dannefer, 2002; Henkin et al., 1997).

Intergenerational programs and interventions have recently emergedas a direct response to age segregation (Larkin & Newman, 1997). Inter-generational programs may be defined as “organized activities betweenmembers of two generations that foster cooperation and promote attitu-dinal change” (Cummings et al., 2002, p. 93). Beginning in the 1960sand 1970s intergenerational interventions have grown internationallyand represent great diversity in purpose and methodology (Kaplan,Henkin, & Kusano, 2002).

Evaluations of intergenerational programs have demonstrated thepositive impact of intergenerational contact in attitudinal changes to-wards the elderly (Aday, Sims, Evans, McDuffle, & Evans, 1996;Cummings et al., 2002; Seefeldt, 1989), generating life meaning (Sellars,1998), and reducing isolation among elders (Greengross, 2002). Benefitsfor youth include increased sense of well-being, increased school atten-dance, and more positive attitudes toward elders (Abrams & Giles,1999; Cummings et al., 2002). Intergenerational programs promote thedevelopment of social cohesion, shared meaning, and cultural continu-ity and increases cultural awareness (Henkin, Santiago, Sonkowsky, &

Research 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

Tunick, 1997; Kaplan et al., 2002). Granville and Ellis (1999) suggest thatthe unique relationship between adolescents and elders in intergener-ational programs represent a model for social change.

At a time when institutional and cultural constraints make it increas-ingly difficult for divergent groups to interact, the intergenerationframework may provide an excellent intervention to promote social co-hesion and positive social change.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKFOR AN INTERGENERATIONAL DIALOGIC MODEL

Fox and Giles (1993) have incorporated an intergenerational commu-nication model into the contact theory framework. Examining inter-generational contact as an intergroup concept, they have included agesalience, age identity, and personality traits as necessary concepts forinvestigation. Research demonstrates the positive effect of intergenera-tional contact in reducing ageism in both elderly and youth.

Adolescents and elders both have ambiguous roles within societywhich may lessen the perceived power influences interfering with re-ducing bias. Granville and Ellis (1999) found that when bringing thesegroups together: “Both generations recognize their similarities and theway they are disenfranchised from main stream social activities. . . .This unique relationship and the dynamics that take place when twomarginalized groups come together, also present a powerful model forsocial change” (p. 235). In addition, due to generational distance, di-rect blame for historical discriminatory practices cannot be placed onparticipants, eliminating potential resentment and anger.

Feminist standpoint theory strongly suggests members of dominantgroups may have a self-interest in maintaining and legitimizing theirdominance within social structures (Swigonski, 1994). The voices ofthe oppressed, whether as a result of their ethnic, racial, spiritual,gender, or sexual identity, may have less interest in maintaining the sta-tus quo and their perspectives may offer valuable critical analyses. Elic-iting the narratives of marginalized populations may provide neededdata to evaluate social representations and encourage reflexivity.

Developmental theory also suggests the potential for the inter-generational model. Erikson’s theory suggests that there is a con-flict of integrity versus despair occurring during old age (Robbins,Chatterjee, & Canda, 1998). This involves the ability to accept deathas an inevitable part of life and a belief that one has made significant

12 JOURNAL OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

contributions during life versus the belief that one’s life has been mean-ingless. According to this model, adolescents are conflicted betweenidentity development and role confusion and are attempting to discoverwho they are and that they are capable of fulfilling meaningful roles insociety. Both these stages imply the potential for the re-examination ofself and one’s dominant value orientation. While the adolescent isstruggling to develop an identity and learn his/her potential, the elderis in a period of reflection to find meaning and contentment. These in-trospective stages are conducive to self-examination, necessary to al-ter existing social categorizations and attitudes.

Figure 2 illustrates the theoretical model for an intergenerational nar-rative intervention. Intergenerational contact theory, developmentaltheory, and feminist standpoint theory suggest the intergenerational in-tervention may have a positive effect in reducing racial bias and ageistattitudes among youth.

EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR MODEL

A small qualitative study of intergenerational dialogue betweenGerman pupils and Jewish Seniors provides empirical support for the

Research 13

Theoretical Frameworks

IntergenerationalContact TheoryContactRelationship

Reflective stages ofdevelopment Hearing

narratives ofdisenfranchisedpopulations

Common goalMarginalizedpopulations

DevelopmentalTheory

FeministStandpoint

Theory

Interpersonal relationships“Power-neutral” dialogueCelebrating multi-dimensional identityCommon goal

Intergenerational Narrative

FIGURE 2. Theoretical model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

intergenerational model for encouraging reflexivity (Ohsako, 2002).Students met with a Jewish senior group as part of a school-basedintervention. Teachers asked the elders to discuss significant childhoodexperiences followed by student questions as part of a three-hour dia-logue. When participants were interviewed upon the completion ofthe dialogue, seniors reported ease of communication with students.German students described increased empathy toward the seniors andexpressed respect and admiration for their courage and tolerance.

Intergenerational dialogue journals have been used to challenge par-ticipants to consider divergent interpretation of events (Bean & Rigoni,2001). The sharing of oral history within an intergenerational frame-work has also been effective in the area of art education (LaPorte,2000). The Netherlands Institute of Care and Welfare developed aneighborhood-reminiscence program using memories and stories ofresidents to promote understanding and respect between social groups(Merken, 2002).

PILOT PROGRAM OF MODEL

A pilot program involving college students and elders living in asouthern community was organized by Meet Me There, Inc., a nonprofitagency dedicated to intergenerational and interracial programming. Af-ter being trained in interview techniques, students interviewed elders inracially diverse dyads to discuss their experiences with racism. Using asemi-structured interview format, students asked about discriminationand racism throughout the elder’s lifespan. Most student/elders met aminimum of four times to complete the interviews. The narratives werethen typed, edited, and bound in a single volume. A celebratory eventwas held for participants, friends, and community members. Individualstories were shared on a voluntary basis and books were distributed. Al-though the program was not part of a research study, program evalua-tion indicates the strong potential for the intergenerational narrativeformat to eradicate negative social categorizations.

Statements from students include the following:1

My eyes were opened to a new perspective of history. A personalversion that I never heard before. The injustices he experienced in-spire me to fight for social justice and, when I become a teacher,make sure my students hear the reality about hate.

14 JOURNAL OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

I grew up in a family full of prejudice. Meeting Mary and hearingabout the pain of discrimination will stop that ugly cycle.

You have certainly provided me with a lot of insight that I wouldnot have acquired, had I not been given the opportunity to get toknow you. You have taught me a lot, and definitely provided mewith the insight to recognize the subtleties of discrimination in thiscountry.

I was somewhat skeptical as to whether we would have any kind ofconnection . . . but from the time that we (met) I felt as though I hadmet a kindred spirit or a long time friend. Any generalizations Ihad of you were quickly abolished.

Hearing the narrative accounts of discrimination and racism fromBlack elders offers the potential for the recognition of negative socialcategorizations held by students with little experiential knowledge ofpower inequalities within social structures and normative value orienta-tions. Such realization may prepare students to be leaders in facing so-cial justice issues in a diverse and global economy. A conceptual modelfor the intervention is seen in Figure 3.

FUTURE INTERVENTIONS

Future interventions, building on the intergenerational narrative model,could merge developmental theory, intergenerational contact theory, andfeminist standpoint theory to take into account issues of age, race, andpower. Classroom-based interventions or interventions held within areayouth organizations would bring together youth and elders to discuss theinfluence of racism and discrimination across the lifespan. Writing narra-tives contributes to the development of relationships and reiterates theknowledge learned in the interviews. Binding the narratives into a singlevolume not only provides a mutual and shared goal, but a permanent doc-ument available to the community. A post-celebratory event contributesto community building and potentially extends the positive effects of theintervention to others.

The use of pre-tests/post-tests to quantify racial prejudice and ageistattitudes would provide empirical support for the intervention. In addi-tion, focus groups formed at the completion of the intervention wouldprovide qualitative data to serve as an additional measurement of inter-vention effectiveness and provide more subjective information aboutthe dyadic relationships and the influence of specific narrative stories.

Research 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

CONCLUSION

In summary, the proposed intergenerational intervention has the po-tential of decreasing racial and ageist prejudice among the participants.Such attitudinal changes may alter the behavior of the individual whichin turn, may create more accepting and tolerant relationships with oth-ers, thereby impacting the larger community. Public sharing, in theform of a celebratory event also expands the influence of the program.At a time in history when intolerance is prevalent, such interventionsmay be a meaningful venue for enhancing relationships and society.

16 JOURNAL OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Macro InfluencesResidential segregationSchool segregationSocial norms

Intergroup Bias

IntergenerationalIntervention

Lack of understanding

RelationshipNarrativeWritingPublic celebration

Student

Racial identityReflectivedevelopmentstage

Decrease inintergroup biasIncrease inmutualunderstandingCommunitybuilding

Elder

Racial identityReflectivedevelopmentalstage

Prejudice

FIGURE 3. Conceptual model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

NOTE

1. Names of the students have been changed.

REFERENCES

Aday, R., Sims, C. R., McDuffle, W., & Evans, E. (1996). Changing children’s atti-tudes toward the elderly: The longitudinal effects of an intergenerational partnersprogram. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 2, 143-151.

Allport, G. W. (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.(Originally published in 1954).

Bell, L. A. (2003). What stories can teach us about racism. Race, Ethnicity and Educa-tion, 6, 1, 3-28.

Berkman, L. F. & Glass, T. (2000). Social integration, social networks, social support,and health. In L. F. Berkman & Kawachi (Eds.). Social Epidemiology. London:Oxford Press, pp. 137-173.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge.Brabazon, K. & Disch, R. (1997). Introduction. In K. Brabazon & R. Disch (Eds.).

Intergenerational Approaches in Aging: Implications for Education, Policy andPractice. New York, NY: Hawthorne Press, pp. 1-2.

Brewer, M. & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspec-tives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.). Groups in Contact: ThePsychology of Desegregation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 281-302.

Buckingham, D. (1999). Turning on the news. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Liter-acy, 43, 3.

Cummings, S., Williams, M., & Ellis, R. (2002). Impact of an intergenerationalprogram on 4th graders attitudes towards elders and school behaviors. Journal ofHuman Behavior in the Social Environment, 6, 91-107.

Decker, D. L. (1978). Sociological theory and the social position of the aged. Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 15, 3/4, 303-317.

Dixon, J. & Durrheim, K. (2003). Contact and the ecology of racial division: Somevarieties of informal segregation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 1-23.

Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, pres-ent, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 5-21.

Ellinor, L. & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Fox, S. & Giles, H. (1993). Accomodating intergenerational contact: A critique and

theoretical model. Journal of Aging Studies, 7, 4, 423-451.Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Giles, H. & Williams, A. (1994). Patronizing the young: Forms and evaluations. Inter-

national Journal of Aging and Human Environment, 39, 33-53.Greengross, S. (2003). Intergenerational programmes as a global approach to social

issues. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships: Programs, Policy, and Re-search, 1, 1, 11-13.

Research 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

Hagestad, G. & Dannefer, D. (2002). Concepts and theories of aging: Beyond micro-fication in social science approaches. In Binstock, R. & George, L. (Eds.). Hand-book of Aging and the Social Sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 3-17.

Helman, S. (2002). Monologic results of dialogue: Jewish-Palestinian encounter groupsas sites of essentialization. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 9, 327-354.

Henkin, N. & Butts, D. (2002). Advancing an intergenerational agenda in the UnitedStates. In M. Kaplan, N. Henkin, & A. Kusano (Eds.). Linking Lifetimes: A Global Viewof Intergenerational Exchange. New York: University Press of America, pp. 65-82.

Henkin, N. Z., Santiago, N., Sonkowsky, M., & Tunick, S. (1997). Intergenerationalprogramming: A vehicle for promoting intra and cross-cultural understanding.Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 28, 197-209.

Kaplan, M., Henkin, N., & Kusano, A. (Eds.). (2002). Linking Lifetimes: A GlobalView of Intergenerational Exchange. New York: University Press of America.

Kaplan, M. & Larkin, E. (2004). Launching intergenerational programs in early child-hood settings: A comparison of explicit intervention with an emergent approach.Early Childhood Education Journal, 31, 3, 157-163.

Kuehne, V. (1998-99). Building intergenerational communities through research andevaluations. Generations, Winter, 82-87.

Larkin, E. & Newman, S. (1997). Intergenerational studies: A multi-disciplinary field.In K. Brabazon & R. Disch (Eds.). Intergenerational Approaches in Aging: Impli-cations for Education, Policy and Practice. New York, NY: The Haworth Press.

Maoz, I. (2003). Peace-building with the hawks: Attitude change of Jewish-Israelihawks and doves following dialogue encounters with Palestinians. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 6, 701-714.

McGowan, T. (1997). Cultural foregrounding and the problem of representation: Com-bating ageism through reflexive, intergenerational experience. Journal of Agingand Identity, 2, 229-249.

Miller, J. & Donner, S. (2000). More than just talk: The use of racial dialogues to com-bat racism. Social Work with Groups, 23, 1, 31-35.

Ohsako, T. (2002). German pupils and Jewish seniors: Intergenerational dialogue as aframework for healing history. In M. Kaplan, N. Henkin, & A. Kusano (Eds.). Link-ing Lifetimes: A Global View of Intergenerational Exchange. New York: Univer-sity Press of America.

Orfield, G. & Eaton, S. E. (1996). Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal ofBrown v. Board of Education. New York, NY: The New Press.

Oskamp, S. (2000). Multiple paths to reducing prejudice and discrimination. InS. Oskamp (Ed.). Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Penninx, K. (2002). Intergenerational community building in the Netherlands. InM. Kaplan, N. Henkin, & A. Kusano (Eds.). Linking Lifetimes: A Global View ofIntergenerational Exchange. New York: University Press of America.

Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,65-85.

Pettigrew, T. & Tropp, L. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recentmeta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.). Reducing Prejudice and Discrimina-tion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 93-114.

18 JOURNAL OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Commu-nity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Riley, M. W. & Riley, J. W. (1994). Age integration and the lives of older people. TheGerontologist, 34, 3, 110-115.

Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. R. (1998). Contemporary Human BehaviorTheory: A Critical Perspective for Social Work. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Roker, D., Player, K., & Coleman, J. (1999). Young people’s voluntary and campaigningactivities as sources of political education. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 1/2,185-198.

Schoem, D. (2003). Intergroup dialogue for a just and diverse democracy. SociologicalInquiry, 73, 2, 212-227.

Seefeldt, C. (1987). The effects of preschoolers visits to a nursing home. The Gerontol-ogist, 27, 228-232.

Swigonski, M. E. (1994). The logic of feminist standpoint theory for social work re-search. Social Work, 39, 4, 387-393.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergorup conflict. InW. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-48.

Torres-Gil, F. M. (2003). Perspectives on intergenerational aspects of aging and diver-sity. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships: Programs, Policy, and Research,1, 1, 5-9.

Traphagan, J. (1998). Contesting the transition to old age in Japan. Ethnology, 37, 4,133-151.

Turner, J., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering theSocial Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Uhlenberg, P. & Gierveld, J. (2004). Age-segregation in later life: An examination ofpersonal networks. Ageing and Society, 24, 5-28.

VanderVen, K. (1999). Intergenerational theory: The missing element in today’s inter-generational programs. In V. S. Kuehne (Ed.). Intergenerational Programs: Under-standing What We Have Created. New York, NY: The Aspen Institute, pp. 65-92.

Walsh, K. C. (2003). Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity inAmerican Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Williams, A. & Nussbaum, J. (2001). Intergenerational Communication Across theLife Span. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best. V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen,R. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the Twenty-first century. Journal of Re-search on Adolescence, 12, 1, 121-148.

Received: 04/01/05Revised: 06/15/05

Accepted: 08/23/05

doi:10.1300/J194v05n01_02

Research 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

59 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2011