Adolescents’ Experiences of Anti-Youth Ageism

What is Ageism?

Ageism is overwhelmingly studied as a phenomenon specific to older adults, yet is a concept that also applies to young people’s experiences. The WHO’s (2021) definition of ageism includes three dimensions (stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination) across three levels (interpersonal, institutional, and self-directed) expressed in two forms (implicit and explicit). Ageism can vary across contexts and cultures (Bratt et al., 2018; WHO, 2021). Substantial evidence on the prevalence of anti-elder ageism and its harms has accumulated and interventions and policy changes have successfully reduced ageism (cf. Burnes et al., 2019). Literature increasingly recognizes young people (and not just older adults) as targets of ageism (Bratt et al., 2018; de la Fuente-Núñez et al., 2021; Shimizu et al., 2023), yet research is relatively sparse.

Conceptual and empirical scholarship on ageism against children and adolescents spans different disciplines and uses different terminology, including adultism, childism, age-based discrimination, juvenile ageism, reverse ageism, and youth oppression (Bell, 2010; de la Fuente-Núñez et al., 2021; Young-Bruehl, 2012). Adultism is the most commonly used term and is synonymous with how we define anti-youth ageism. We draw from adultism and other relevant literature, yet we prefer the term anti-youth ageism for several reasons. Ageism provides a lifespan framework that can foster understanding of parallels and divergences across anti-youth and anti-elder ageism (Bratt et al., 2018). Furthermore, anti-youth ageism is a clearer concept because it specifies the target (i.e., youth) and the valence of the oppression (against youth).

Anti-youth ageism can be experienced in childhood through young adulthood, but adolescence is an important developmental period in which to study ageism. Adolescents face a unique set of stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination relative to children and older adults (Wray-Lake et al., 2025). Adolescence is a socially constructed age group that is defined and experienced differently over time and across cultures (Jensen & Arnett, 2012). From its original conceptualization (G. S. Hall, 1904), however, adolescence in the U.S. has been considered a time of turmoil and problems. Adolescents are no longer children but have not reached adulthood, leaving them in a liminal space. As adolescents take on normative developmental tasks of becoming autonomous and developing their own worldviews, they sometimes question adults and challenge the status quo. These tensions produce intergenerational cultural clashes and position adolescence as a source of society’s moral panic, in which media, policymakers, educators, and the public bemoan crises related to “troubled youth,” with young people of color especially targeted (Cohen, 2011). Moreover, dominant societal narratives frame adolescence as a social problem or a condition to be treated or corrected (Elman, 2014; Lesko, 2012).

Enough evidence is available to support the existence of anti-youth ageism, yet in-depth research focusing on adolescents’ experiences of ageism remains lacking. Across studies, adolescents have reported experiences of age-based discrimination. Bratt et al. (2018) surveyed individuals between ages 15 and 105 across 29 European countries about age discrimination, asking if they had been treated unfairly, disrespected, or treated poorly due to their age. Adolescents (ages 15–19) reported the highest levels of ageism compared to other age groups across 14 countries. Quantitative research on U.S. adolescents’ experiences of everyday discrimination has found that some young people attribute discrimination to their age (Smith & Pössel, 2022), and Black and Latine young people tend to report ageism as a second most common form of discrimination, after racism (Huynh et al., 2016; Seaton et al., 2010). Hunyh et al. further found that everyday discrimination, regardless of the type, was associated with heightened stress reactivity, which can be detrimental for health. In studies of adolescents’ daily discrimination, ageism is often a passing note rather than a major theme. These studies do not explore what adolescents’ experiences of age-based discrimination are like or how they intertwine with other prevalent forms of discrimination, such as racism and sexism.

Research on adolescence has also documented negative stereotypes about adolescents. Stereotypes are beliefs that form cognitive schemas used to categorize people in ways that are overgeneralized and unfair (Stangor, 2015). Negative stereotypes about this age group are wide-ranging and include considering adolescents to be troublemakers, moody, disruptive, self-interested, impulsive, and irresponsible (Buchanan & Holmbeck, 1998; W. Chan et al., 2012; Grühn et al., 2011). Although some adolescents may hold these characteristics, negative stereotypes are always problematic because they are blanket assumptions indiscriminately applied to a group. These stereotypes have been perpetuated by scholars of adolescent development since the field’s inception: G. S. Hall (1904) asserted that adolescence is a time of storm and stress, and as Youniss (2006) and others pointed out, Hall’s ideas about adolescence were intertwined with racist thinking. Other scholars have long since upheld notions of adolescents as dangerous, unpredictable, sexual creatures (cf. Lesko, 2012). Educators’ negative stereotypes of adolescents have been translated into curricula (C. Chan & Ting, 2012; Frieh & Smith, 2018). Parents’ negative stereotypes of adolescents have been associated with poorer parent-adolescent communication, which in turn, relates to lower adolescent well-being (Silva et al., 2020). Additionally, parents’ negative stereotypes of adolescents shape parenting practices, which, for some, translate into adolescents behaving in ways that conform to negative expectations (Buchanan & Hughes, 2009; Jacobs et al., 2005). Adults’ stereotypes of adolescents come at a time when adolescents are developing their identities and sense of self (DeJong & Love, 2015) and may be particularly harmful when adolescents internalize these beliefs (Qu, 2023). Research on negative stereotypes of adolescents aligns with social psychological research that negative stereotypes and discrimination against a group are harmful psychologically, socially, and physically (Stangor, 2015).

Ageism as a System of Oppression

Like all other -isms, anti-youth ageism is a system of oppression (DeJong & Love, 2015; Wray-Lake et al., 2025). Oppression is a system of beliefs, actions, norms, and practices that protect privileges and maintain hierarchies in society (Suyemoto et al., 2022). Stereotypes and prejudices are part of a system of oppression when used by people in positions of power to reinforce hierarchies and uphold privileges. Likewise, discrimination – unfair treatment due to one’s identity or group membership – is an enactment of oppression when it reinforces power and superiority of more privileged groups in the social hierarchy (Suyemoto et al., 2022). Choosing language of oppression to frame anti-youth ageism recognizes the structural roots and systems that perpetuate age-based inequalities and emphasizes that interpersonal forms of anti-youth ageism are upheld by larger systems (Wray-Lake et al., 2025). Anti-youth ageism, like other forms of oppression, often shows up in unquestioned norms and practices within a society and its institutions and is often enacted by well-meaning people (Young, 1990/2010).

Young (1990/2010) offered a useful framework identifying “five faces of oppression” and how they operate: marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, exploitation, and violence. These five dimensions of oppression are evident in adolescents’ experiences of anti-youth ageism (DeJong & Love, 2015; S. Hall & 4theRecord Research Team, 2024). Marginalization occurs when groups of people are seen as less significant and useful, and more peripheral, to society (Young, 1990/2010). Marginalization of a group often leads to diminishing their rights and opportunities and showing disrespect. For example, research on youth civic engagement has documented how some adult community leaders dismiss adolescents’ contributions and assume them to be uninformed and unprofessional (Conner et al., 2016). Legal scholars have documented some educators’ practices of controlling student conduct with unchecked authority and using coercive interrogation, physical searches of students’ bodies and property, and disciplinary action without due process (Jacobi & Clafton, 2022, 2023a, 2023b). Powerlessness is reflected when oppressed groups are not granted decision-making or voice, especially at times when those in privileged positions most benefit. For example, research on power structures in schools illustrates how unilateral decision-making by educators deprives students of voice (Domínguez et al., 2022). Cultural imperialism measures a group against the norm of those in power and privileged positions. This is reflected in anti-youth ageism when adults are considered superior to younger people because of their age and adults’ views and behaviors are the norm or gold standard against which adolescents are compared and found to be deficient (DeJong & Love, 2015). When cultural imperialism is enacted, non-dominant groups are made to feel invisible, stereotyped, and othered (Young, 1990/2010). Research has well documented the pervasive nature of deficit-based assumptions of adolescents (e.g., Altikulaç et al., 2019; Buchanan et al., 2023; Lesko, 2012), which adolescents can internalize (Qu, 2023). Exploitation occurs when people in power benefit from the uncompensated or unfairly compensated labor of others (Young, 1990/2010). Examples of exploitation in anti-youth ageism include unpaid internships for young people that lead to financial gains for adult-run organizations (DeJong & Love, 2015) and social media advertising that uses increasingly sophisticated strategies to commodify young social media users (Leiner et al., 2025). Violence is a highly visible and easily recognizable form of oppression, and in anti-youth ageism, violence manifests in adult-perpetrated physical and sexual abuse (Barth & Olsen, 2020). Adults may use violence as a means of intentionally harming, humiliating, and controlling young people (DeJong & Love, 2015).

Anti-youth ageism cannot be understood in isolation but instead must be considered alongside other systems of oppression such as racism, cisheterosexism, classism, and ableism. Intersectionality is a theoretical perspective, methodology, and practice of identifying and challenging the ways that systems of oppression operate together to marginalize specific groups in society (Collins, 2002; Crenshaw, 1989). Anti-youth ageism may compound and exacerbate the effects of racism. For example, adults may assert power, assume risk-taking and criminality, restrict autonomy, and demand compliance in more punitive ways for Black adolescents and other young people of color (Goff et al., 2014; Gordon, 2007; Jacobi & Clafton, 2023b; Kennedy, Anyon et al., 2022). Indeed, Black young people are often adultified by adults in school, community, and criminal legal institutions, denying Black adolescents lenience typically afforded to white adolescents and instead pathologizing them as deviant and assuming adult-like culpability (Gilmore & Bettis, 2021). Adultification is an amalgamation of racism and ageism, demonstrating complex ways in which power imbalances are maintained between adults and young people (Liebel & Meade, 2024). Anti-youth ageism may also intersect with cisheterosexism to disadvantage LGBTQ+ adolescents. For example, adults may rely on negative stereotypes of adolescents as deviant and rebellious to dismiss LGBTQ+ identities and use their authority to demand compliance to conventional gender norms (S. F. Hall, 2021). Furthermore, anti-youth ageist and classist assumptions can lead adults to assume that being LGBTQ+ is a middle- or upper-class experience, contributing to the erasure of experienced injustices of LGBTQ+ young people from lower-income backgrounds (S. F. Hall, 2021). Racism and classism are also deeply intertwined forms of oppression (hooks, 2000). Extant literature particularly focused on adult and societal assumptions at the intersections of age, race, and class, documenting how Black girls from low-income backgrounds are adultified, criminalized, and sexualized (Abrams, 2002; Bettie, 2014; Morris, 2016). Ageism and ableism also intersect; these overlapping experiences are well conceptualized in research on ageism against older adults (e.g., Gendron et al., 2024), with older adults with disabilities commonly feeling devalued or seen as incapable. Ableism shares similarities with anti-youth ageism with adolescents, as individuals with disabilities are often othered, dismissed, and disrespected (e.g., Bogart & Dunn, 2019), and research suggests that these dual experiences can have compounding negative effects on young people (Lindsay, 2011). Anti-youth ageism may provide a power structure through which adults can exert other forms of oppression against adolescence with impunity. Intersectional dynamics of anti-youth ageism need to be better understood from adolescents’ perspectives.

Current Study

This study takes an inductive qualitative approach to documenting how 40 adolescents from different racial/ethnic and gender backgrounds experience anti-youth ageism. Existing conceptualizations of ageism offered a basis for our inquiry, but interviews aimed to solicit stories and experiences from adolescents without inserting our own understandings of ageism. The lens of intersectionality informed data collection, in asking adolescents about overlapping experiences of age, race, gender, and other identities, as well as data analysis, in identifying intersectional experiences when they arose in the data.

Positionality

Our research team consisted of the Principal Investigator (PI), three doctoral students who conducted interviews, two undergraduate students, and one high school student. We came together with a shared interest in challenging negative assumptions about adolescents and honoring young people’s stories. The first author and PI identifies as a white, cisgender, middle-aged woman. Her identities inherently give her blind spots in analyzing experiences of young people with other racial and ethnic or gender identities, and thus she employed a non-hierarchical, collaborative approach to analysis. The second author is a first-generation doctoral student and a Black woman in her late 20s. Since her community-engaged research centers young people, she connected with them easily during interviews and employed reflexivity to manage interpretations of data. The third author identifies as white and cisgender, with interests in the positive potential of youth civic engagement. As a high school student and adolescent, she brought a youth perspective to the data. The fourth author identifies as Asian and cisgender. As an undergraduate student in her early 20s, she is close to adolescence and can recount recent instances of ageism; these experiences informed group discussions. The fifth author is a white cisgender woman who conducts research with young people about their activism and civic engagement. She experienced ageism as an adolescent and empathized with young people’s experiences. The sixth author identifies as a Nigerian American undergraduate student in her early-20s. She is not a stranger to ageism, as it has been deeply rooted in her culture and present in many interactions with adults, helping her relate to participants’ stories. The seventh author is a second-generation Filipina American whose interests in ageism stem from community organizing and clinical work with young people of color.

We all brought different knowledge and lived experiences with ageism and different identities into the work. Our younger members, who had more proximal experiences of anti-youth ageism, were sometimes better able to recognize how power was operating across young people’s distinct narratives and experiences and also recognized recurring and resonate phrases, such as young people often mentioning that adults don’t believe they are ready for the “real world.” More established researchers were sometimes better able to draw connections to other concepts in the literature, such as the five faces of oppression, and group discussion was important for determining whether and how existing concepts were evident in the data. We only brought outside concepts into discussion at later stages of interpretation, to maintain an inductive approach. We all were predisposed to believe that anti-youth ageism exists. Interviewers asked questions in neutral, non-leading ways and some young people reported that they had not experienced negative treatment by adults in certain contexts, evidence that we created space for various viewpoints and experiences in the interviews. To maintain an explicit awareness of how our personal experiences and biases related to the research, we engaged in reflexive memoing, including memoing about our positionalities. We tried to keep interpretations close to the data and returned to young people’s own words often when writing analytic memos and findings to avoid relying solely on our own worldviews. We used weekly discussions to promote reflexivity among our team, as we reviewed, critiqued, and affirmed interpretations with each other. For example, we spent considerable time discussing concepts of adults’ shifting expectations and unfair expectations, debating how these experiences were similar and different and considering our different views of these complexities. Ultimately, we reported themes for which we had consensus across the team. These reflexive practices balanced the influence of any one research member’s view and ensured that findings emphasized our shared perspectives.

Coding and Data Analysis

We utilized an inductive thematic approach to align with our goal of describing ageism from young people’s perspectives. Despite some knowledge of young people’s experiences of ageism from prior literature, we chose to stay close to the data in developing codes and themes more authentically rooted in participants’ narratives to capture what ageism looks like during adolescence. An intersectionality lens guided our sampling strategy, interview questions, and data interpretation during analyses. However, we chose not to conduct racial, gender, or sexuality group-specific analyses of ageism at this phase: We were seeking shared experiences of ageism across groups and identified some group-specific experiences in the process. Intersectional themes were also discussed by young people who did not hold those particular identities, yet were observers of these patterns.

First, recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai, then cleaned. Then, all study authors engaged in an iterative coding process guided by our broad research question of understanding how ageism is described and experienced by adolescents. The first author led a coding training with team members new to qualitative research, where we discussed the practices outlined by Miles et al. (2019) for descriptive coding and applied these practices to one transcript. Next, the full research team engaged in line-by-line coding for the same transcript individually, followed by group discussion of points of consensus and divergence. We repeated line-by-line coding iteratively for five transcripts, adding potential codes to a collective list and combining and grouping them into focused codes through several rounds of discussion. Coding units were segments of text that conveyed an idea or a story, which ranged from several lines to a short paragraph. Multiple codes were applied to each segment as appropriate and relevant. We next applied focused codes iteratively to one transcript at a time, and all available research team members participated weekly. As part of this process, we combined or revised codes and refined definitions, as needed, after team discussions of our code applications and used consensus building to decide on meanings and code applications that were agreed upon by group members. After nine rounds of code applications and revisions, we reached saturation in code development, defined as the point at which no new codes were identified by any team member. The final codebook consisted of 84 codes, which we organized into seven categories that partly followed the flow of interviews and partly were derived from our data observations. See Supplemental Table S2 for a list of codes and categories. Team members divided up the transcripts and coded them independently, flagging and bringing any coding questions to weekly group discussions, which were decided via consensus. On average, around three codes were applied to each excerpt and transcripts had an average of 36 excerpts.

Next, inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes (Clarke & Braun, 2017). We centered our analysis on the 15 codes under the category of Negative Age-Based Stereotypes and Ageism against Adolescents, as these codes were most relevant to our research aim (see Supplemental Table S3). We reviewed excerpts for each code and wrote analytic memos that reflected insights from each code and then wrote additional memos integrating insights across codes. These memos were presented at weekly analysis meetings, where we refined insights and interpretations as a group and drew further connections across memos. Collective meeting notes tracked themes that were building across memos and conversations. We collectively engaged in reflexive practices of considering biases, thoughts, and impressions from analytic memos, and encouraged younger team members to share alternative perspectives if interpretations centered an adult worldview or drew too heavily on prior knowledge. At earlier stages in the process, we tried to avoid naming connections to other concepts in the literature to ensure that themes were arrived at inductively. At later stages of the interpretation process, we considered if and how inductively emerging themes aligned with existing concepts in the literature. In particular, the five faces of oppression framework helped us frame and organize themes that we arrived at inductively, and intersectionality was a lens we used for making sense of adolescents’ diverse experiences. Again, our consensus-driven process yielded themes that all team members agreed represented the data. Given the many themes identified, we spent several sessions discussing potential higher-order themes and prioritizing themes that address the research question. This paper’s themes do not reflect all insights from the data and should not be taken to imply that adolescents only have negative interactions with adults. As shown in the interview topics (Supplemental Table S1) and list of codes (Supplemental Table S2), positive and general experiences with adults were discussed, yet fell outside of this paper’s scope, which aimed to understand adolescents’ experiences of ageism.

Theme 1: Negative Stereotypes of Adolescents Are the Foundation of Anti-Youth Ageism

Adolescents named negative stereotypes adults hold about their age group, both when prompted to reflect on stereotypes about adolescents and when describing experiences of anti-youth ageism. Adolescents’ reflections showed that adults’ negative stereotypes formed the basis for various experiences of anti-youth ageism. Theme 1A describes the varied nature of negative stereotypes against adolescents, and Theme 1B describes how negative and positive stereotypes co-occur. Theme 1C outlines the process by which negative stereotypes underlie rigid expectations adults have for adolescents to be more adult-like, which can produce distress.

Theme 1A: Negative Stereotypes of Adolescents Are Prevalent and Varied

In response to being asked, “What are some stereotypes that adults have about teenagers?” and “What are some of your personal experiences with stereotypes from adults based on your age?,” adolescents described numerous and overwhelmingly negative stereotypes. Analyses led to grouping negative stereotypes about adolescents into five broad categories, depicted in Table 2 with example quotes. First, adolescents were often assumed to be incompetent, including lacking knowledge and intelligence and lacking the capability to demonstrate responsibility through leadership and civic engagement. As Lucy, an 18-year-old white adolescent girl, put it, “They [adults] expect you to mess up.” Second, adolescents were often assumed to be unmotivated and stereotyped as “lazy,” having a poor work ethic, not “taking things seriously,” and not caring about school or work. Third, adolescents were often assumed to be irresponsible decision-makers, including having devious intentions and being “up to no good,” being reckless or impulsive, and engaging in risk-taking behaviors like drugs or sex. Fourth, adolescents were often assumed to lack emotional maturity, including stereotypes of being “moody,” “angsty,” and “dramatic,” with feelings that are overblown or “just a phase.” As part of this stereotype, adolescents described being assumed to be “too sensitive,” especially when expressing social justice concerns. Finally, adolescents were often assumed to be socially or morally deficient, being stereotyped as “lying,” shallow, self-focused, or “vain,” and as too easily influenced by peers.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Negative Stereotypes About Adolescents .

Negative stereotypes	Representative quotes
Youth are incompetent.	• “[Adults] expect you to mess up.”• “[My family says,] ‘oh, well, you need to hush because you don’t know what you’re talking about.’”• “People in your community think that you’re like, just joking around and you don’t understand what it is that you’re doing” (referring to service project)
Youth are unmotivated.	• “When kids aren’t continuously working now, I think it’s just seen as lazy.”• “And then people were like, ‘Why are you taking such little time on this? Are you rushing or cheating?’”• “I’d say like, sort of lazy, disengaged, like, unmotivated, those sort of all tie in together.”
Youth are irresponsible decision-makers.	• “This is like a reckless teenager tryin to break in. . .”• “[The teacher] didn’t understand how we could be so irresponsible” (due to having tattoos and piercings)• “A big [stereotype] would be. . .drugs, people, a lot of people stereotype this age as people are very easily swayed into doing things”
Youth lack emotional maturity and are” too sensitive”.	• “. . .that stereotype of the angsty, moody teenager who stays in their room all day and don’t come out.”• “That kind of goes back to the whole thing about being super sensitive . . . I think there’s like these, like, unfair stereotypes placed on people who are like, social justice warriors or whatever . . . And then parents will think that like, ‘Oh, you guys are taking this way too seriously. Like, why do you even care about all these things?’ It’s like, ‘why are you so sensitive?’”
Youth are socially or morally deficient.	• “There’s kind of the assumption based off our age, that we aren’t telling the truth.”• “Her grandma was coming up and just calling her like a skank” (because of her outfit)• “They think that we’re very full of ourselves.”• “If you try to embrace. . .some aspects of femininity. . .it’s kind of difficult to without people being like, oh, teenage girl obsessed with her looks.”• [Adults convey] “get a grip, like you need to get off your phone and end up in the real world.”• [Adults assume] “all teenagers are like followers, or that all teenagers crave..rebellion and want to be troublemakers.”

Theme 2: Negative Stereotypes Fuel Adults’ Unfair Treatment of Adolescents

Adolescents described how ageist stereotypes fueled discrimination against them, explaining how adults and social institutions barred young people from full participation in civic, work, school, and family contexts. Adolescents’ narratives highlighted three salient experiences of unfair treatment that flowed from adults’ negative stereotypes of adolescents: adults devalued adolescents’ positive contributions based on stereotypes of incompetence (Theme 2A); adults denied adolescents autonomy and trust based on stereotyping adolescents as irresponsible and immoral (Theme 2B); adults disregarded emotions and mental health symptoms based on stereotyping adolescents as emotionally immature (Theme 2C).

Theme 3: Intersectional Experiences of Ageist Mistreatment

Adolescents experienced ageism differently depending on their identities, because adults’ ageist stereotypes intertwined with stereotypes rooted in racism, cisheterosexism, classism, and ableism. Three subthemes illustrate how ageism operates differently for adolescents who experienced marginalization due to race, gender, sexuality, ability, and class. Adolescents observed that adults treated adolescents of color, and especially Black young people, more punitively, and these experiences of racialized ageism also intersected with classism (Theme 3A). Adolescent girls experienced more pressure to conform to high expectations than adolescent boys, and these experiences were also racialized (Theme 3B). Adolescents shared how adults relied on anti-youth ageism to deny LGBTQ + adolescents’ identities (Theme 3C). Moreover, adolescents cited the hypocrisy of adults in viewing youth with disabilities as in need of assistance and protection while also minimizing the legitimacy of their disability (Theme 3D).

Theme 4: Power Allows Adults to Enact Anti-Youth Ageism

Adolescents pointed to adults’ relative power over them as a defining feature of anti-youth ageism. Power differentials between adults and adolescents across settings enabled adults to espouse negative stereotypes and enact unfair treatment without consequences and sometimes in ways that were punitive, harsh, and hostile. As depicted in Figure 1, power appears across enactments of anti-youth ageism and facilitates enactments of ageism. Mike stated directly that ageism against adolescents is perpetuated by “people in power,” and Yuki, a 17-year-old Asian American adolescent girl, asserted that adults view themselves as a “higher rank than others.” Similarly, when asked to describe the adults who treat adolescents negatively, Nolan explained how adults in positions of power enact anti-youth ageism more often, saying:

I guess there’s always an imbalance between teenagers and adults. . . if they really have a position of power over you, where they have the freedom to judge you. . . That could be teachers or parents or any authority figure. I feel like it’s probably more prevalent then.

Adolescents used common language to refer to this power dynamic by invoking images of adults being over young people and looking down on them. Chase felt like adults “look down on me as just ‘oh, it’s some kid,’” Ryan, a 16-year-old white adolescent boy, described how some adolescents feel that adults “abus[e] their standing over you,” and Bill, a 16-year-old white transgender adolescent boy, echoed the sentiment that “around a peer you’re kind of feeling like, equal to them, then around someone who’s older than you, then you’re like, you know, underneath.” In defining ageism, Socrates, an 18-year-old Asian American adolescent boy, said that ageism comes from “people have some kind of power or a leg over you.” Winnie invoked the language of power, as well, saying that adults focus on “holding the age over everything” rather than being willing to “actually sit down and listen to you and talk rationally.” In sharing about her experiences with teachers wielding power over students via grades and discipline, Winnie explained that “They [teachers] are correct and there’s no other say. It doesn’t. . .matter about anything else, any of the other details.” Winnie contrasted adults who lean on power dynamics to convey “just do what I say, like I told you to do” to her mother’s approach of love and support in conveying “I’m on your side, I’m trying to understand you.” Through this comparison, Winnie illustrated how evoking power in adult-adolescent interactions makes exchanges less relational, less supportive, and more punitive.

 Adolescents often felt like there were no consequences for adults’ hostile and harsh behavior toward them. Kayleigh plainly explained this view, saying, “I think that people will just feel more comfortable disrespecting the youth because they assume that you’re not going to do anything, or that they won’t be held responsible for their actions.” Adolescents described being ignored or silenced when they raised concerns about adults’ hostility or overly harsh treatment. Winnie explained that adults who exhibit ageism make it so “you have no other choice” and if “you keep fighting against that. . .there’s gonna be consequences for you as the teenager.” Young people shared stories of challenging adults’ behavior, which led to adults doubling down on ageist stereotypes, such as Lux, a 15-year-old Latine, gender nonbinary adolescent, who tried to tell an adult “you’re wrong about that” and heard in response that “you’re just a teen. . .you’re misbehaving, you’re talking back.” When being politically active on social media, Lana explained, “Adults have tried to push us down so much. I feel like we had to make more effort to get our point across, making us seem kind of loud and uncooperative.” When adolescents challenged adults’ ageism, they often experienced more ageism from adults as a consequence.

Adolescents felt diminished when adults wielded power and control in these ways. Leviticus, in describing how he feels when his dad treats him like a child and acts like, “Oh, I’m making all these decisions for you. I’m not even gonna ask for your opinion on it,” he shared that this kind of control makes him feel “kind of small,” and “I don’t feel like a person. I feel kind of more like a possession.” Winnie described the feeling of having no power to fight adults’ control and consequences, saying “it’s a lot of fight emotionally, mentally knowing that. . .you don’t feel like there’s any way to reason. . .you’re like a trapped bird.” These adolescents and others felt a lack of freedom and personhood when power dynamics of ageism were at play.

Echoing and expanding from Theme 3, adults wielded power in ways that were racist, sexist, and homophobic. For example, Dante, a 17-year-old biracial Native American and Latino adolescent boy, named a racialized element to the power adults wield over adolescents. In response to being asked about treatment from adults due to being Latino and young, he shared a story of being accused of stealing at a store, and then reflected:

So maybe because the adults feel like they have more authority or power? You know, that they’re in a job. And they have, I guess, duties to fulfill, they might have a power trip. And I think that happens a lot with, you know, the term that’s used by us, Gen Z people, is like the Karens.

His reference to “the Karens” illustrates the racialized link, as the stereotype of Karen refers to white female privilege to demand authority and get away with being insensitive and accusatory toward people of color. Other adolescents named similar power dynamics when reflecting on how ageism works with other oppressions like racism, sexism, and homophobia. Socrates explained the intersectional nature of ageism, evoking imagery of being controlled:

I feel like age can be used as an excuse to tighten your shackles more. So obviously, gender, race can. . .So if you’re a girl, people like to use that excuse for whatever reason to kind of put you down or hold you down. Age could help them give them more ammunition to kind of pull you down a little more as well. . .because I feel like it’s [age is] an easier scapegoat. . . to kind of oppress people and to suppress. . .And it’s not what’s fair, the age, but I feel like it’s more of a fair reason to discriminate, or like passing prejudice or put people down.

In articulating how ageism can exacerbate the impacts of racism and sexism, Socrates was connecting ageism to power and control. As Socrates noted, unlike prejudice based on these other identities, ageism appears to be more acceptable, an “easier scapegoat,” in society and is therefore used by adults as a primary power-wielding tool to “pull you down” and oppress adolescents, especially when adults hold other racial and gender prejudices.

Negative Stereotypes and Links to Cultural Imperialism

Adolescents in our study shared many negative stereotypes about adolescents that adults communicate. These stereotypes spanned different settings including families, schools, work, community, and media. Adolescents’ shared narratives about these stereotypes and their prevalence point to a broader cultural norm in which many adults disparage adolescents for not being more like adults and thus aligns with the concept of cultural imperialism. Although this term is not widely used in developmental science, Young (1990/2010) defined cultural imperialism as the experience of “how the dominant meanings of a society render the particular perspective of one’s own group invisible at the same time as they stereotype one’s group and mark it out as the Other” (p. 66). Although there may be other connotations or meanings of cultural imperialism, we draw from Young’s definition, which focuses on stereotyping or othering subordinate groups as inferior to a dominant group. Adolescents in our study were othered by adults’ beliefs that they are incompetent, unmotivated, irresponsible, emotionally immature, and socially or morally deficient. The consistent infusion of negative stereotypes with positive stereotypes further suggested that adolescents are being othered by adults. Both implicitly and explicitly in our data, adults were the standard by which adolescents were compared and often found to be deficient. Negative stereotypes we identified cut across cognitive, emotional, and behavioral domains, and thus span the core domains of adolescent development. Other developmental research has similarly identified negative stereotypes (Altikulaç et al., 2019; Buchanan & Holmbeck, 1998;W. Chan et al., 2012; Grühn et al., 2011) and has noted a broader deficit mindset that often pervades public discourse, school and community practices, and even research on adolescence (see Telzer et al., 2022). These stereotypes are also a stark reminder of how adolescence is socially and politically constructed, and dominant societal narratives position adolescents as inferior, troubled, and often a public problem; these narratives overlay with discourses that perpetuate racism, cisheterosexism, classism, and ableism (Lesko, 2012).

Anti-youth stereotypes share roots with other systems of oppression. Some anti-youth negative stereotypes adolescents discussed were the same assumptions known to be levied against girls and women (e.g., unintelligent, too emotional; Ellemers, 2018) and people of color, especially Black and Latine people (e.g., irresponsible, immature, deviant; Rollo, 2018; Rosenthal et al., 2020). Meiners (2016) argued the concept of a child is highly racialized and heterogendered, leading to differential assumptions of innocence, culpability, and human dignity. We showed that ageist stereotypes overlapped with racial, gender, and cisheterosexist stereotypes to shape adults’ treatment of adolescents with multiple marginalized identities. When any group is marginalized and othered, such inferior treatment is understood as a strategy of a dominant group to uphold their superiority (Young, 1990/2010). Interestingly, most adolescents in our sample spoke about the gendered nature of anti-youth ageism. Anti-youth stereotypes, and the dominant norms and narratives they reinforce, may often manifest in gendered ways given accompanying dominant norms about gender roles, a pairing that merits greater study.

Adolescents in our study felt disheartened and started to question themselves and their worth as a direct result of adults’ negative stereotypes. Some adolescents felt like they would never be enough for adults and struggled against what they saw as impossible expectations. These findings align with research documenting processes by which adolescents internalize negative stereotypes, come to see themselves as inferior, and may respond by initiating the negative behaviors adults expect of them (cf. Qu, 2023). The WHO (2021) named ageism as one of the world’s most socially acceptable biases, and the pervasive and generally unquestioned nature of anti-youth stereotypes mean that these negative beliefs about adolescents are baked into the norms and culture of society and its institutions. Our findings reiterated that negative stereotypes about adolescents may be directly harmful to adolescents, and they also set the foundation for anti-youth ageist actions that marginalize young people.

Unfair Treatment as Evidence of Marginalization

Adolescents’ experiences of marginalization by adults were evident from descriptions of their contributions being devalued, their autonomy restricted, and their emotional and mental health needs ignored. Adolescents’ narratives support the idea that these forms of unfair treatment were enacted based on negative stereotypes indiscriminately applied to adolescents and therefore reflected age-based discrimination. In Young’s (1990/2010) conceptualization of oppression, marginalization is in part defined by denying a group of people useful participation in society, and our research and others have documented how adults devalue adolescents’ contributions in everyday life and especially in civic spaces (Bertrand, 2019; Conner et al., 2016; Gordon, 2007). When individuals – like adolescents – are dependent on others to fully meet their needs, they are more susceptible to marginalization including “patronizing, punitive, demeaning, and arbitrary treatment” by policies and people in power (Young, 1990/2010, p. 64). Adolescents in our study experienced both interpersonal and institutional forms of marginalization, which were, again, rooted in sweeping assumptions about adolescents as a group. Our work further documented that some adolescents’ experiences of marginalization were heightened when other forms of oppression like racism and cisheterosexism were operating. The intersections of ageism and racism, for example, resulted in experiences of adultification for Black adolescents. Our findings are compatible with research showing that Black adolescent boys and girls are treated more punitively in schools (Epstein et al., 2017; Welsh & Little, 2018) and are denied assumptions of innocence and corresponding protections of childhood and adolescence as times of growth and learning from mistakes (Goff et al., 2014). These intersections can be exacerbated by gender dynamics, especially for Black adolescents, as Black girls experience racist and sexist expectations from teachers (Carter et al., 2018) and Black boys are often criminalized at higher rates in school (Basile et al., 2022). Intersections of ageism and cisheterosexism align with other work showing how gender and sexual minority adolescents experience adults’ denial of their identities (Kosciw et al., 2020). Thus, our study affirms the idea, articulated by others (Bertrand, 2019; S. F. Hall, 2021; Kennedy, Anyon et al., 2022), that anti-youth ageism is best understood from an intersectional lens. Notably, adolescents of various identities shared similar ideas and observations about differential treatment by adults due to ageism alongside racism, cisheterosexism, classism, and ableism. This convergence of shared perspectives for young people with and without direct experiences of identity-based stereotypes and discrimination lend powerful testimony to the intersecting oppressions at play for adolescents.

Adolescents’ Experiences of Powerlessness

Adolescents identified how adults exerted power over them in ways that gave adolescents little recourse against adults’ behavior and allowed anti-youth ageism to proliferate. Our results do not show that adolescents are powerless, but adolescents named that adults exert authority and control, which enables them to enact anti-youth ageism without consequences. Powerlessness is an integral component of oppression, as those in powerless positions lack authority and status, have less autonomy and decision-making over the conditions of their lives, and often must try to prove to the dominant group that they are worthy of respect (Young, 1990/2010). One manifestation of anti-youth ageism we found was restricting autonomy, which may be particularly harmful for adolescents given that healthy development includes independence. Adolescents in our study reported feeling constrained, objectified, and diminished when adults exerted unilateral power to make rules and decisions, assert their rightness, and demand respect. Similar power dynamics operate in other systems of oppression, such as when adults set and enforce rules about when and how Black young people can express emotions (Lozada et al., 2022) or which bathrooms transgender students can use (Crissman et al., 2020). Our findings reflect adolescents’ perspectives on when they feel adults’ exertions of power are unwarranted. Specific nuances of when, how, and why adults inappropriately exert power over adolescents requires further study. In this line of inquiry, the parenting literature may be instructive, as Baumrind (2012) distinguished between coercive control – for example, hostility, harshness, arbitrary rules and discipline, demands for immediate obedience – and other healthier and appropriate forms of parental control. Coercive control is most aligned with the power plays of anti-youth ageism and could be further studied across other adult-youth interactions.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study shed light on three of the five dimensions of oppression experienced by adolescents due to their age. Violence and exploitation are two other dimensions of oppression (Young, 1990/2010) that are important facets of anti-youth ageism (DeJong & Love, 2015) yet were much less common in the data (although not completely absent). More specific questions about these experiences and purposive sampling for adolescents with these experiences may provide more insight into these aspects of anti-youth ageism. Although we identified themes related to intersectionality in ageism, a more robust examination of how anti-youth ageism operates in concert with other systems of oppression is needed. This kind of analysis would require deep group-specific investigations to identify unique and overlapping patterns of themes within and across groups. Our findings demonstrated that anti-youth ageism is experienced in intersectional ways depending on race and ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, and disability, yet the latter two identity-related experiences of oppression were not as thoroughly captured in our data. We identified themes of intersectionality based on adolescents’ explicit naming of how these forces were operating. This analytic choice prioritizes adolescents’ own understandings of anti-youth ageism, but may have missed or underrepresented intersectional dynamics at play in young people’s experiences of anti-youth ageism. To advance theory of anti-youth ageism and its impact on youth development, future research should more precisely identify processes by which anti-youth ageism operates to facilitate, legitimize, or compound other forms of oppression in adolescents’ lives.

Our qualitative study was descriptive with the goal of documenting young people’s experiences of anti-youth ageism, and by definition, this study is not representative or generalizable but instead builds theory about the ways in which anti-youth ageism operates. Larger scale quantitative research on anti-youth ageism would also be helpful for documenting the prevalence of this form of oppression for different subgroups of young people and for hypothesis testing of the ways in which anti-youth ageism may compound negative impacts of racism, cisheterosexism, classism, ableism, and other forms of oppression among adolescents. Quantitative survey measures are now being developed (e.g., Hall & 4theRecord Research Team, 2024), and such efforts can accelerate quantitative inquiry on anti-youth ageism. Moreover, our U.S.-based study may not be generalizable to other countries due to important distinctions in cross-cultural conceptualizations of adolescence (Jensen & Arnett, 2012). Adolescents in other contexts may experience different types of discrimination or experience ageism in intersection with other intersecting forms of marginalization (e.g., religious, caste-based, colorism). Future research should study ageism in international contexts, with a lens to unique sociohistorical and political dynamics in that area.

Although our findings illustrated some immediate and proximal harms adolescents experience as a result of ageism, primarily pertaining to their sense of self, this study barely scratched the surface in documenting the consequences of anti-youth ageism for adolescents’ socioemotional development, relationships with adults, mental health, and functioning in other areas of life. Additional qualitative and longitudinal quantitative studies would help to fill this significant gap in the literature. Moreover, our analysis did not include adolescents’ resistance and resilience in the face of anti-youth ageism. Adolescents are rarely passive recipients of adults’ anti-youth ageism, nor are they powerless, and future research should investigate how adolescents cope with and challenge different forms of anti-youth ageism across contexts.

Our study centered adolescents’ perspectives, with views of 16 to 18-year-olds more represented. Early adolescents may have distinct experiences of anti-youth ageism and future research should replicate this study with a younger sample of adolescents. Documenting children’s experiences of ageism would also be informative for expanding research on ageism across the lifespan. Another fruitful line of research would involve capturing adults’ perspectives of adolescents to examine the nature, origins, and correlates of anti-youth ageism. Dyadic designs with adolescents and adults such as parents or teachers could illuminate processes by which anti-youth ageism operates and disagreements around when, why, and how these assumptions are made and conveyed. Furthermore, research on institutional and interpersonal practices that authentically respect and celebrate young people with different identities and backgrounds may help to identify existing strategies for reducing anti-youth ageism and other forms of oppression.

Implications

We hope this study raises academic and public awareness of anti-youth ageism, which adolescents experience as an oppressive force in their lives, and brings attention to how anti-youth ageism exacerbates other oppressions adolescents face. Many adults are likely to be completely unaware of when and how they exhibit anti-youth ageism and how negative stereotypes and related actions can harm adolescents. Most adults have good intentions and want adolescents to thrive. Yet, in contemporary society, oppression often manifests in subtle ways, through unquestioned societal norms and practices typically enacted by well-meaning people (Young, 1990/2010). Recognizing anti-youth ageism in interpersonal interactions and institutions is an important step toward addressing it. On an interpersonal level, with more awareness of anti-youth ageism, adults can be more mindful of when they espouse negative stereotypes and more careful about applying them to adolescents, instead viewing adolescents in more nuanced and holistic ways (Telzer et al., 2022). Authentically listening to adolescents and their experiences with anti-youth ageism is an underutilized strategy for identifying how anti-youth ageism can be addressed. Anti-ageist interventions for adults are in nascent stages, but existing approaches such as youth-adult partnerships, youth participatory action research (YPAR), and youth organizing can reduce adult-adolescent power hierarchies, center youth voices, and demonstrate the value of youth’s contributions (Bertrand et al., 2023; S. F. Hall, 2020; Kennedy, Anyon et al., 2022). Interventions that counter negative age-based stereotypes appear to help prevent adolescents from internalizing them (Qu et al., 2020). Interventions may be effective in supporting adults to critically examine power, privilege, and oppression in their lives and disrupt the blanket negative assumptions about adolescents (Kennedy, Elnicki et al., 2022).

Anti-youth ageism should also be better understood and addressed at institutional levels. School policies could be analyzed through the lens of anti-youth ageism to identify school rules and disciplinary practices that may be rooted in negative assumptions about adolescents, in ways that may also intersect with underlying assumptions about race, gender, sexuality, class, or disability. For example, alternative approaches to traditional school discipline such as restorative justice may better reflect anti-oppressive practices (Leland & Stockwell, 2021), and institutionalized appeals processes for disciplinary and grading decisions may offer clearer avenues to challenge the power dynamics of anti-youth ageism in schools. Institutionalizing opportunities for authentic youth voice and decision-making in schools, community organizations, and local government may be useful strategies for countering systemic anti-youth ageism (Conner et al., 2016). Given that adults make policy decisions that directly impact adolescents’ life conditions, contexts, and opportunities, identifying and changing negative assumptions policymakers have about adolescents is critically important. Researchers and practitioners should continue examining ways to reduce and eliminate anti-youth ageism across multiple levels on which this system of oppression operates.

For scholars of adolescent development, it is time to root out deficit-based thinking about adolescents that still pervades much of the research on this age group (cf. Buchanan et al., 2023). Understanding adolescents’ experiences of anti-youth ageism may help researchers pinpoint and excise forms of anti-youth ageism perpetuated by developmental science. Problems and challenges during adolescence are undoubtedly important to study and address, yet we must critically reflect on whether any ageist assumptions implicitly or explicitly drive the questions and topics we choose to investigate. We should be careful not to feed into society’s moral panics about adolescents, that is, fears about adolescents that are disproportionate to the nature of the issue or problem (see Cohen, 2011). Embracing an anti-ageist lens of adolescence may call us as researchers to critique the power dynamics and hierarchies involved in treating adolescents as subjects of study and to consider participatory methods that invite young people in as research collaborators, which also often involve efforts to change systems (Ozer et al., 2024).