In recent years and decades, science (including andragogy, geragogy, gerontology) has made a significant contribution to increasingly look differently towards age(ing) (Waxenegger, Ludescher & Brünner, 2016).
On the one hand, it helped to sharpen awareness regarding the complexities of age and aging. On the other hand though, further stigmatization by the creation of positive age constructions are not completely eradicated (Kade, 2007, 16). Age has now diverse connotations, depending on individual experiences or fixed ideas.
We can still find certain age-related images in society, as well as in companies, that are either positive and/or negative. Notions of age refer to generalised images „about age, about changes associated with aging, and about characteristics that are considered characteristic of older adults.“ (Arbeiterkammer Wien & Österreischischer Gewerkschaftsbund, 2010, 8; translated from German)
In everyday life, age is usually considered chronologically and not very differentiated. From the perspective of research, „age“ is a social construct (Kade, 2007, 13; Baumgartner, Kolland & Wanka, 2013, 19). This social construct gives orientation, especially when it comes to a chronological differentiation (for example, age as life phase, age as a cohort, age as a lifetime). In everyday life, it is quite common to categorise calendric age and divide them into classical, legal and socio-administrative age divisions – childhood & adolescence (-18), adulthood (18-60/65) and old age (60/65- ) –, although these too may differ from each other depending on their interpretation and presentation.
Nevertheless, age cannot always be clearly and exclusively reduced to chronological (calendrical) characteristics. Because: different individual worlds of people’s lives also lead to different ways of ageing (Baltes & Baltes, 1994, 14; Waxenegger, Ludescher & Brünner, 2016). The concept of „differential age(ing)“ summarises these differences and takes into account psychological (mental), physiological (physical) and social (societal) dimensions:[2]
| Psychological dimension | Considers changes in the cognitive performance area, such as the slowing down of cognitive processes or decrease in information processing speed (keyword: fluid intelligence) while simultaneously increasing knowledge and (life) experiences (keyword: crystalline intelligence) (Kruse & Rudinger, 1997, 46f.). |
| Physiological dimension | Considers (individual) physical changing processes of the human being, such as the reduction of biological conditions and functions, the decrease of adaptability or the increase of vulnerability (non-resistance, defenselessness) of the organism (Kruse & Rudinger, 1997, 46). |
| Social dimension | Considers social ideas and developments, such as socially defined roles and functions or certain social concepts of life phases and styles (Kruse & Rudinger, 1997, 47). |