Overaccommodating language toward older adults: an interpretation based on theories of communication accommodation and system justification

Introduction

In recent years, communication phenomena and processes have been recognized as playing an integral role in understanding intergenerational communication and aging (see Fowler et al., 2015; Giles, 2025; Giles et al., 2022). While there are a range of interconnecting theories in this arena, there is a consensus (Harwood and Kunkle, 2024; Hummert, 2023) that communication accommodation theory (CAT) provides the foundation for most of these. The theory is arguably the most robust framework for explaining how individuals communicatively align with others in interpersonal and intergroup contexts (Dragojevic and Giles, 2014). Its outreach has been embraced by many social and biological sciences and studied, with an eclectic range of methods, across numerous languages, cultures, social groups, and applied and institutional settings (for overviews, see Giles and Gardikiotis, 2025; Giles et al., 2023, 2025; Soliz and Giles, 2014). In addition to examining forms of communicative accommodation across a myriad of verbal, non-verbal, discursive, and interactional features throughout its more than 50-year history, the theory has devoted much attention to non-accommodative phenomena and processes (e.g., Giles et al., 2024). Gasiorek (2016a) termed this the “dark side” of CAT.

Importantly, one of the intergenerational communication theories alluded to above introduced the “model of non-accommodative parameters of intergenerational communication” (Giles and Gasiorek, 2011, p. 241). Within this, overaccommodation to older adults features as an important aspect of younger adults' intergenerational communication. Overaccommodation refers to adjustments that exceed what is considered appropriate or necessary in a given context (Coupland et al., 1991). Examples of elders being overaccommodated emerge through the study of patronizing talk (PT), often expressed through so-called “elderspeak.” This includes linguistic and prosodic characteristics such as grammatical simplification, the use of diminutives, or exaggerated intonation (Caporael, 1981; Kemper et al., 1996; Ryan et al., 1986; Viladot and Giles, 1998). Such communicative behaviors may function as infantilizing communication leading to attributions of reduced competence, autonomy, and decision-making capacity (Ryan et al., 1994), consistent with broader stereotypes portraying older adults as warm but incompetent (Cuddy et al., 2005, 2008). Beyond these behaviors, paternalism may extend to broader manifestations, including overly directive or overprotective styles that substitute the interlocutor's autonomy under the justification of care (Ryan et al., 1995; Shaw and Gordon, 2021).

These findings have contributed to consolidating a view of overaccommodation in terms of PT as a generally problematic phenomenon (see CAT Principle 6 below). Qualitative evidence further suggests that elderspeak should not be understood solely as individual communicative behavior but also as a socially and institutionally embedded practice. A qualitative meta-synthesis of healthcare professionals' experiences found that patronizing communication is frequently enacted with caring intentions to facilitate care delivery, cooperation and organizational routines, while simultaneously risking the erosion of older adults' autonomy and personhood (Lillekroken et al., 2026). At the same time, certain instances of this may be construed as well-intentioned (Harwood et al., 1993, 1997).

To account for these discrepancies, the present article integrates insights from System Justification Theory (SJT; e.g., Jost, 2020) as a framework that can complement and be aligned with CAT. This is achieved by showing how certain potentially devalued communicative forms may, nonetheless, be managed and even normalized in everyday interaction. Hence, it is the re-interpretation of the social meaning of overaccommodation to older people that is at the heart of the current article, which is structured as follows. First, the key principles of CAT are selectively introduced for the purpose of the orientation, highlighting its interpretive and context-dependent nature. Second, empirical research on PT in institutional and everyday contexts is reviewed to emphasize the variability of reactions to overaccommodation, with several methodological limitations identified. Finally, besides developing a new conceptual framework that distinguishes between evaluation and interpretive acceptance, SJT is integrated with CAT for the first time and in ways that have important social and theoretical implications.

CAT and the interpretation of communicative adjustments

As noted above, CAT provides a valuable framework for understanding how, when, and why interlocutors align—or do not— with others' language and communicative features, and the social consequences of so doing. Over the decades, the so-called general CAT Principles have been refined and expanded (Giles, 2016; Giles et al., 2023). A selection of these (crafted after Bernhold and Giles, 2020) provides a parsimonious inroad into the essence of the theory:

• Communication accommodation is a ubiquitous and fundamental aspect of social interaction that accomplishes two major goals: first, it helps facilitate coherent interaction and, second, it allows interactants to manage social distance between one another.
• Individuals have expectations about what constitutes situationally appropriate, positive, and desirable accommodation, and these expectations are informed by the sociohistorical context of the interaction at hand, interpersonal and intergroup histories, and idiosyncratic preferences and personalities.
• The degree and quality of individuals' accommodation in interaction is a function of both their motivation and goals to adjust and by their ability to adjust.
• Speakers will, over time, increasingly accommodate to the communicative patterns they believe characteristic of their interactants, the more their goal is to affiliate (i.e., decrease social distance) with their interactants on either an individual or group level, or make their messages more easily understood.
• As a function of the intentions, motives, and goals believed to underlie a speaker's communication, perceived accommodation increasingly and cumulatively decreases perceived social distance, enhances interactional satisfaction, positive evaluations of speakers, and facilitates mutual understanding.

An additional proposition is especially relevant for the focus of this article (from Giles et al., 2023, p. 11):

• 6. When accommodation is poorly calibrated (including being under- or over-accommodative), it can provide a variety of negative cognitive and affective outcomes. These include increased social distance and dissatisfaction with allied reductions in mutual understanding within an interaction, face-to-face or mediated, as well as lead to a range of others' misattributions, miscommunications, and social and communication failures (emphasis added).

Considering the above, communicative adjustments do not have an ultimate and inherent value. Rather, their social and relational meanings depend in large part on how they are understood by interlocutors. Thus, the same behavior—such as speaking more slowly or using an exaggerated affective tone—may be objectively measured, but its appraisal is crucial, insofar as it can be perceived either as a display of consideration or as a paternalistic and devaluing form of communication (see Ytsma and Giles, 1997). Hence, communicative adjustments may take various forms and be interpreted and evaluated in different ways depending on the context, the intentions attributed to the speaker, and prevailing social norms (Hummert et al., 1998).

Within this framework, it is important to distinguish conceptually between different phenomena that are often overlapping in the literature on communication and aging. Although PT constitutes one of the most visible discursive manifestations, it is embedded within broader dynamics of paternalism and ageism, including interpersonal forms of stereotyping as well as more institutionalized forms of exclusion. These conceptual distinctions are summarized in Table 1. This shows that while overaccommodation to older adults is often homogenized as a single phenomenon, we contend it may operate at different levels. This is important because the meaning of PT may be perceived as a facilitating resource or as paternalism or even as an expression of ageism. How it is attributed depends on:

• who is speaking:
• to whom the communication is directed;
• in what situations the interaction takes place;
• what relationship exists between the interlocutors;
• what intentions are attributed to the speaker, and
• the broader institutional and social framework in which communication occurs.

Table 1. Conceptual distinctions between elderspeak, paternalism, and ageism.

In other words, distinguishing between these conceptual levels helps explain why the same communicative behavior may be interpreted in different ways. This interpretive dimension is particularly relevant when examining empirical research on intergenerational communication in applied and everyday contexts and, in our case, PT.

As above, studies conducted in institutional settings have consistently shown that the use of PT by professionals is associated with negative outcomes, including resistance to care, irritation, and reduced cooperation when target recipients are older adults (e.g., Edwards and Noller, 1993; Robinson et al., 2006; Ryan et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, interventions aimed at reducing infantilizing language in younger people and professionals have demonstrated significant improvements in interaction quality and residents' cooperation and wellbeing (Corwin, 2018; Harwood, 2025; Williams et al., 2009).

Much of this evidence, however, is derived from experimental and vignette-based designs which present well-known methodological limitations, such as social desirability and moral bias (Payton and Gould, 2022; see, however, Baguley et al., 2022; Kim and Yang, 2024). In these contexts, participants may respond not so much in terms of how they would behave but, rather, in accordance with normative judgments about what is considered socially appropriate. This is particularly so when the scenarios depict clearly inappropriate forms of communication, potentially leading to an overrepresentation of critical responses. Moreover, these approaches do not capture how overaccommodation is produced and interpreted in everyday natural interaction, nor how recipients respond in context, particularly regarding the expectations and inferences they make about the speaker's intentions (Cheah et al., 2023; Collett and Childs, 2011). Consequently, by relying on simulated situations or third-party reports, as well as on a limited range of traits and emotions, these studies do not adequately capture how these practices are managed naturally in real interaction (Fowler et al., 2026; Payton and Gould, 2022).

Nevertheless, despite these predominantly negative findings, several studies indicate that certain forms of communicative adjustment associated with PT may be perceived positively under specific conditions, particularly when they are interpreted as not communicatively optimal but, nonetheless, well-intentioned (Harwood et al., 1993, 1997). In this regard, Pierquet's (2006) study, based on qualitative interviews with older adults, examines how they interpret and respond to forms of paternalistic communication in everyday situations. Findings show that participants identify as paternalistic those forms of communication that ignore their desires, needs, or beliefs, beyond the presence of specific linguistic features. This suggests that characteristics such as grammatical simplification, basic vocabulary, or exaggerated intonation may contribute to the perception of paternalism but are not a necessary condition for it. Indeed, potentially paternalistic behaviors may be read as attempts to help or facilitate interaction, particularly when benevolent intentions are attributed to them (Harwood et al., 1993, 1997).

The benevolent interpretation of behavior may function as a strategy of conflict avoidance, particularly in contexts where confrontation may entail relational costs (Giles et al., 1991; Harwood and Giles, 1993). It may also contribute to reducing the discomfort derived from perceiving behavior as inappropriate while maintaining a positive relationship with the interlocutor through processes of cognitive and relational regulation (Festinger, 1957; Gasiorek and Giles, 2012). These patterns may be further reinforced by age stereotypes and self-stereotypes associated with later life, as well as by broader social norms that promote forms of self-regulation oriented toward acceptance and non-confrontation (Hummert, 2011; Levy, 2003; Rothermund and Brandtstädter, 2003). In this sense, older adults may internalize socially shared expectations regarding dependency, vulnerability, or communicative competence, shaping how overaccommodative behaviors are interpreted and managed in interaction. In this way, interpreting behavior as well-intentioned not only reflects a judgment about the speaker but may also contribute to normalizing forms of communication that limit older adults' autonomy (Giles and Gasiorek, 2011; Harwood, 2007). Similarly, the more effort older adults perceive in the adaptation—or even over-adaptation—of speech, the more positively they tend to evaluate it (Giles et al., 1973), particularly in intercultural interactions, where such effort may be understood as a sign of respect, interest, or willingness to understand (Choi, 2026). However, such interpretations do not necessarily imply a positive affective evaluation, as recipients may experience discomfort while simultaneously inferring benevolent intentions.

Overall, these findings suggest that overaccommodation practices—including PT as a particularly visible case—provide a productive site for examining how supposedly dysfunctional communicative behaviors may be critically evaluated—and yet maintained in interaction. This tension points to the need for a more fine-grained analytical distinction between evaluation, interpretation, and response. To clarify this distinction, Figure 1 summarizes the principal dimensions involved in the evaluation and management of overaccommodative communication. Distinguishing between affective evaluation, cognitive interpretation, behavioral response, and normative acceptance helps explain how recipients may negatively evaluate communicative practices while nevertheless interpreting them as well-intentioned, leaving them unchallenged, or accepting them as socially legitimate, in line with recent work emphasizing the affective and cognitive pathways involved in accommodative communication (Peng et al., 2025). Overaccommodative communication is thus shaped through interpretative processes that connect attributions of intentionality with affective and cognitive evaluations, as well as with interactional responses and normative forms of acceptance.

However, although CAT provides a useful framework for explaining the contextual and interpretative nature of these processes, it offers a more limited account of how negatively evaluated practices may nevertheless come to be accepted or normalized. From this perspective, overaccommodation cannot be understood solely at the level of individual perceptions but must also be situated within broader normative systems that shape expectations about age, legitimacy, and appropriate intergenerational conduct. To address this issue, we turn to SJT as a complementary explanatory framework.

Integrating SJT with CAT: from negative evaluation to normative acceptance

As noted in the previous section, CAT provides the central communicative framework for this article by explaining how speakers adjust, under-adjust, or over-adjust their communication in relation to interlocutors, contexts, and perceived social identities. However, the empirical literature reviewed above suggests that the consequences of overaccommodation cannot be understood solely in terms of negative evaluation. In some cases, recipients may experience discomfort or perceive communicative practices as suboptimal while nevertheless accepting them, not challenging them, or interpreting them as appropriate within the interactional context. It is precisely this gap between evaluation and acceptance that SJT helps to explain. In this sense, SJT extends the explanatory reach of CAT by clarifying why certain forms of poorly calibrated accommodation may become normalized when they are perceived as consistent with broader age-based expectations, institutional routines, or beliefs about what is appropriate in later life.

This integrated CAT–SJT perspective also extends CAT's treatment of the “dark side” of accommodation (Gasiorek, 2016a). From a CAT perspective, perceptions of communicative appropriateness are shaped by interactional expectations, attributed intentions, and the norms regulating social interaction. Accordingly, CAT has long recognized that overaccommodation and other forms of poorly calibrated communication may generate negative affective and relational outcomes, including dissatisfaction, increased social distance, interactional discomfort, and perceptions of patronization. SJT complements this perspective by explaining how communicative practices associated with benevolence, care, or protection may nevertheless acquire normative legitimacy despite their potentially paternalistic character. In this sense, communicative practices that may be critically evaluated at the interactional level can still persist because they become embedded within broader cultural expectations regarding aging, dependency, and care.

Before examining SJT's explanatory mechanisms in greater detail, it is useful to illustrate how this perspective applies to intergenerational communication and aging, which constitutes the central focus of the present analysis. In this context, forms of overaccommodation—such as simplified language, patronizing tone, or PT—may be interpreted not only in terms of communicative effectiveness, but also through broader cultural expectations surrounding aging and care (Hummert et al., 2004; Giles and Gasiorek, 2011). Importantly, these interpretations are shaped by contextual and relational factors, including the relationship between interlocutors, the institutional setting, attributed intentions, and expectations associated with age and dependency.

SJT, formulated by Jost and Banaji (1994), is based on a view that may initially seem counterintuitive: people do not only seek to protect their self-esteem or favor their ingroup but, also, tend to defend and legitimize the social system in which they live, even when that system is unequal or places them at a disadvantage (Vargas-Salfate et al., 2018). The theory was developed precisely to explain why individuals and groups may come to accept, rationalize, or reproduce structures that are detrimental to them (Jost and Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2017).

To understand this approach, it is necessary to introduce the central concept of the theory: the system justification motive. This refers to a general tendency to perceive the social order as legitimate, coherent, and justifiable. It is distinct from ego justification (maintaining a positive self-image) and group justification (favoring one's in-group), because it is oriented toward defending the social system itself. A key contribution of SJT is to show that this motivation may operate independently of personal or group interests, and sometimes even in tension with them (Jost et al., 2017).

This motive can be understood through two complementary dimensions: the psychological needs that underlie it and the mechanisms through which these needs are expressed. On the one hand, system justification is grounded in epistemic needs (the desire for order, coherence, and predictability), existential needs (related to security and the reduction of uncertainty or threat), and relational needs (the desire to share a common understanding of reality with others) (Jost et al., 2017). Together, these needs suggest that perceiving the social system as legitimate is not only an ideological position but, also, a way of maintaining psychological stability. On the other hand, system justification operates through dynamic psychological processes such as the reduction of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). When individuals experience tension between perceived inequality and the need for a stable and meaningful social world, psychological discomfort emerges. In response, individuals may either challenge the system or reinterpret reality in ways that render it more coherent and acceptable. According to SJT, the latter response frequently prevails (Jost et al., 2017).

It is through these processes that system-justifying beliefs emerge. Such beliefs allow individuals to perceive the social order as coherent, legitimate, and understandable, while also reducing the tension associated with inequalities or contradictory experiences (Jost and Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2017; Kay and Jost, 2003). Importantly, these beliefs do not operate only at an abstract ideological level but may also become embedded within everyday communicative expectations and practices.

In the context of intergenerational communication, this may take the form of certain assumptions, such as the assumptions that it is normal to speak more slowly to older adults, that protective communication reflects respect and consideration, and/or that professionals are better positioned than others to determine what older patients need. Likewise, recipients may avoid confronting paternalistic communication so as to preserve relational harmony or avoid interactional costs. Under these conditions, certain forms of overaccommodation may gradually come to be regarded as ordinary, appropriate, or expected in communication with older adults.

These processes, however, do not operate uniformly across situations. Both SJT and CAT emphasize that communicative interpretations and responses are shaped by the social and relational context (Gallois et al., 2016; Giles et al., 2023; Jost et al., 2017). The same form of simplified speech, for example, may be interpreted differently depending on whether it occurs in healthcare settings, family interactions, or brief encounters between strangers. Similarly, trust between interlocutors, perceived dependency, and expectations associated with age roles may influence how overaccommodative communication is interpreted and managed (Giles et al., 2010).

Taken together, these processes show how CAT and SJT operate at complementary analytical levels. Whereas. CAT provides the communicative framework for analyzing how accommodative practices are produced, interpreted, and negotiated in interaction, SJT helps explain how broader social expectations may contribute to the persistence and normalization of certain communicative patterns over time. The integration of both perspectives therefore makes it possible to move beyond an approach focused exclusively on the immediate evaluation of overaccommodation toward a broader understanding of how such practices become embedded within everyday intergenerational communication.

This interpretation is supported by qualitative evidence showing that healthcare personnel frequently describe elderspeak as a practical and caring strategy for achieving cooperation and maintaining everyday care routines. Importantly, these communication practices are simultaneously experienced as potentially undermining residents' autonomy and personhood, illustrating the coexistence of care, behavioral regulation, and institutional expectations that the present CAT–SJT framework seeks to explain (Lillekroken et al., 2026).

Multi-level implications: from individual interpretations to the reproduction of an age-based hierarchical system

The incorporation of SJT as a complementary framework to CAT allows for a deeper understanding of variability in the perception of overaccommodation without altering the core foundations of the theory. Rather than constituting strict theoretical integration, this approach refines its explanatory scope by emphasizing the psychological and social mechanisms involved in interpretative processes. Building on the preceding discussion, we propose a multi-level reading of language and intergenerational communication—represented in Figure 2—that articulates the processes analyzed across three interconnected levels: micro (individual interpretation), meso (social norms), and macro (social structure). This perspective makes it possible to understand how individual interpretations are embedded within broader normative frameworks and social structures that both constrain and reproduce them (Giles et al., 2023; Jost et al., 2017).

Micro-level: interpretation, agency, and psychological regulation

At the micro level, recipients do not merely process language behaviors in formal terms, but interpret them in relation to the need to maintain a coherent, legitimate, and predictable representation of the social world, as proposed by SJT. In this sense, the acceptance of certain forms of overaccommodation may serve functions of psychological regulation. More specifically, interpreting such behaviors as appropriate or well-intentioned may help reduce the cognitive dissonance that would arise from perceiving them as unjust or degrading, particularly when they are widely normalized within the social environment (Festinger, 1957; Jost and Hunyady, 2003). Thus, the reinterpretation of overaccommodation may operate as an adjustment mechanism that enables the maintenance of a subjective experience of coherence and stability. At the same time, these interpretative processes are linked to identity dynamics. Individuals do not merely interpret social reality but also, position themselves in relation to socially meaningful categories (Hogg, 2016; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). In the context of intergenerational communication, this implies that older adults may negotiate their identity in relation to age-based expectations (Giles and Reid, 2005), opting to accept, reinterpret, or legitimize certain communicative practices when these are perceived as coherent with these social frameworks.

This level of analysis provides the basis for understanding how these processes are articulated with broader social norms (meso-level) and more general social structures (macro-level).

Meso-level: social norms and the regulation of interaction

At the meso level, and in continuity with the processes described at the micro level, individual interpretations are embedded within a network of social norms that define and regulate what is considered communicatively appropriate in intergenerational contexts (Bicchieri et al., 2023; Legros and Cislaghi, 2020). From a sociological perspective, age-related norms constitute a central component of social organization, as they establish differentiated roles, rights, and obligations across the life course (Abrams et al., 2016; Ayalon and Tesch-Römer, 2018; Ridgeway, 2014). These norms not only guide behavior but, also, shape its interpretation, delineating what is perceived as respectful, appropriate, or deviant in intergenerational communication (Nelson, 2017; Swift et al., 2017). Within this framework, forms of overaccommodation such as PT may be interpreted not only as communicative deviations, but also as expressions—albeit potentially problematic—of socially shared patterns (Hummert et al., 2004).

From the perspective of SJT, these normative frameworks not only regulate interaction but may, also, be internalized and perceived as legitimate by the very individuals subject to them (Jost et al., 2017). This implies that their reproduction does not depend exclusively on external imposition, but also on processes of internal legitimation that contribute to their stability. Within this context, interpretations are constructed in concrete interactions in which participants adjust their behavior based on mutual expectations (Gasiorek, 2016b). Thus, overaccommodation may be produced, accepted, or redefined during interaction. Over time, the repetition of these patterns may contribute to their normalization and institutionalization, consolidating certain forms of communication as “natural” or expected (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Cialdini et al., 1990; Ridgeway, 2014; Tankard and Paluck, 2016), while normative acceptance may, in turn, shape subsequent interpretative processes and sustain the reproduction of overaccommodation.

Macro-level: social structure and the reproduction of the age system

Beyond these normative and interactional dynamics, overaccommodation may also incorporate a broader status-regulatory function. In certain contexts—particularly within family, organizational, or institutional relationships—practices such as anticipating needs, speaking on behalf of older adults, or redefining their capacities may contribute, not necessarily intentionally, to displacing older adults from positions of autonomy, authority, or social relevance (North and Fiske, 2012; Ridgeway, 2011). In this sense, overaccommodation may form part of broader processes through which age-based hierarchies are reproduced and normalized.

At the macro level, the processes described are embedded within wider social structures and institutional arrangements. Here, ageism is not limited to interpersonal interactions, but materialized in the design of services, policies, and institutional environments. Institutional ageism emerges when seemingly neutral structures—such as the digitalization of services, the organization of healthcare, or the configuration of administrative procedures generate barriers to access or unequal treatment for older adults. In such cases, discrimination does not necessarily stem from explicit intentions, but from implicit assumptions about autonomy, competence, or needs associated with age.

These structures do not merely reflect pre-existing social expectations but, also, contribute to producing and stabilizing them, shaping the frameworks within which everyday interactions take place. The macro-level, therefore, operates not only as context, but as an active mechanism in the reproduction of the age system. SJT helps explain how these hierarchies may come to be perceived as legitimate and taken as natural, thereby facilitating their reproduction without the need for explicit coercion (Jost and Banaji, 1994). This perceived legitimacy shapes both speakers' expectations and recipients' interpretations, directly influencing how communicative practices are produced and managed in interaction.

In summary, these levels do not operate in a linear manner, but rather through a process of continuous feedback. Social structures (macro-level) shape social norms (meso-level) which, in turn, guide individual interpretative processes (micro-level). At the same time, the interpretations and responses that emerge in everyday interaction may contribute to reinforcing, qualifying, or transforming these norms and structures. In this way, the repeated enactment of communicative practices such as overaccommodation—particularly when they are accepted or not challenged—may consolidate normative expectations and contribute to the reproduction of the age system.

Conclusions

This article addresses a central tension within CAT: although age-based overaccommodation is often perceived negatively, responses to such behaviors are not uniform and vary depending on the context. Given the foregoing and with our appeal to SJT, we would now wish to provide a modification to CAT Principle 6 accordingly:

6′. When poorly calibrated non-accommodation in the form of overaccommodation (e.g., patronizing talk) is inferred by recipients to have been motivated by compassionate or well-intended motives and is construed as normative and legitimate in the social system at hand, it may cause some communicative discomfort but can be accepted and lead to non-confrontational avoidance.

We anticipate that the inaugural unification of SJT and CAT is but the tip of the iceberg, insofar as other amalgamations are on the horizon with ongoing theoretical ventures into the decolonial worlds of the African continent (see Giles and Mark, 2026; Mark and Giles, 2026). In any case, the central contribution of this work is the analytical distinction between the evaluation of communicative behaviors, which may be unfavorable, and their acceptance in actual social interaction. This distinction helps explain why overaccommodation may be perceived as inappropriate and yet continue to be accommodated in interaction, as well as how individual interpretations are articulated with broader social norms in the reproduction of age-based hierarchies (Van der Toorn et al., 2011).

Building on recent developments in CAT, we propose SJT as a complementary framework to explain the mechanisms of legitimation and normative coherence involved in the interpretation of communication. On this basis, the proposed conceptual framework integrates both perspectives into a multilevel analysis, in which the dissociation between evaluation and acceptance functions as an articulating mechanism across levels. As illustrated in Figure 2, this framework allows for the analysis of how this dissociation connects individual cognitive processes, social norms, and broader structures of power, contributing both to the reproduction and the transformation of age-based hierarchies (Giles and Gasiorek, 2011; Ridgeway, 2014). From this perspective, the acceptance of overaccommodation fulfills relevant psychological and social functions, such as identity regulation, the reduction of cognitive dissonance, and the maintenance of a coherent representation of the social system (Jost and Hunyady, 2003; Van der Toorn et al., 2011).

Interestingly, recent work suggests that these processes are also experienced by healthcare professionals themselves. Rather than describing elderspeak as a deliberate expression of ageism, professionals frequently portray it as a communicative resource that facilitates care, cooperation, and organizational efficiency, despite acknowledging its potential impact on residents' dignity and personhood (Lillekroken et al., 2026). These findings provide empirical support for the present argument that overaccommodation is sustained not only by individual intentions but also by institutional and normative contexts.

It is important to emphasize that these processes are embedded in specific structural contexts that partly shape intergenerational relations. Recent evidence suggests that the relationship between age and subjective wellbeing varies across countries and cohorts (Blanchflower and Bryson, 2025). It is plausible that in contexts with higher levels of resources, autonomy, and social recognition of older adults, tolerance or acceptance of overaccommodation is lower, whereas, in more precarious contexts these communicative practices may be more easily legitimized and normalized. This perspective underscores the need to incorporate a comparative approach in future research. We also highlight the need to promote forms of intergenerational relations based on the principle of equality in difference in line with the social creativity strategy proposed by social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). This involves fostering institutional equality between age groups while recognizing and respecting differences, avoiding both homogenizations, and the uncritical reproduction of stereotypical expectations.

We consider communicative practices to constitute a key opportunity for intervention. However, recent evidence suggests that communication alone may be insufficient. Because elderspeak appears to be embedded in organizational cultures and everyday care routines, interventions should also promote institutional reflection, person-centered communication and organizational support for healthcare professionals if sustainable changes are to be achieved (Lillekroken et al., 2026). Given that overaccommodation has devaluing effects on the wellbeing and identity of older adults (Bernhold and Giles, 2020; Williams et al., 2009), it is especially important to promote forms of communication that are perceived as respectful and empowering (Giles et al., 2022; Viladot and Giles, 2012), including appropriate forms of both accommodation and non-accommodation (Gasiorek et al., 2019).

Echoing the idea that the way we speak to others both reflects and shapes the social world we inhabit, our approach underscores the importance of paying attention not only to what is said but, also, to how it is interpreted and managed in interaction. The way individuals imagine they are judged by others—metastereotypes—generates more anxiety than reality itself, and more positive perceptions of others are associated with lower levels of this anxiety (Byrd et al., 2019; Dragojevic and Gasiorek, 2026; Fowler and Gasiorek, 2020). Indeed, intervening in communicative practices contributes not only to improving the quality of intergenerational interactions but also, gradually, to transforming social norms related to age through broader processes of social psychological intervention and normative change (Cialdini et al., 1990; Cohen and Sherman, 2014; Fowler and Gasiorek, 2024). Understanding overaccommodation as a space in which evaluation and acceptance may diverge offers a key entry point for examining how age-based inequalities are subtly reproduced—and how, ultimately, they may be transformed.

Future research should not only investigate different social and cultural contexts but also examine the conditions under which overaccommodation is accepted, resisted, or reinterpreted. It should also incorporate international comparative studies and longitudinal data. This research would undoubtedly benefit from greater precision in the conceptualization and operationalization of “acceptance” and response, including measures of attributed accommodation and perceived appropriateness and legitimacy. Furthermore, it is important to extend the analysis to other forms of non-accommodation toward disadvantaged and marginalized groups, including underaccommodation toward younger groups (see Giles and Gasiorek, 2011), linked to forms of youthism that remain relatively underexplored in the literature (Ayalon and Tesch-Römer, 2018; North and Fiske, 2012; Swift et al., 2017). Likewise, systematically incorporating an intersectional perspective—particularly about gender and race—would allow for a better understanding of how age-based communicative processes are experienced and evaluated differentially.

In this sense, age does not operate in isolation but intersects with other axes of inequality (Barrett and Von Rohr, 2008; McCann et al., 2004; Voelkle et al., 2012). For example, older women tend to disappear earlier from the public sphere, becoming less visible and are more rapidly infantilized than men (Scheifele et al., 2021; Steffens et al., 2019; Steffens and Viladot, 2015). Younger men may be perceived as less responsible or less legitimate in certain decision-making spaces, and older men as less credible than middle-aged men (Finkelstein et al., 2013; Giles et al., 2000). In this regard, Sublett et al. (2022) found that older men and women are evaluated differently when they challenge paternalistic stereotypes, highlighting the distinction between benevolent ageism and benevolent sexism. This communicative delegitimization cannot be grasped solely as a matter of individual attitudes, but as the effect of power relations, unequal representation, and social hierarchies that determine who is recognized as a legitimate interlocutor (Ridgeway, 2011). Incorporating these intersectional dynamics would allow for a more nuanced understanding of perceived accommodation and its relationship with broader systems of inequality.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: John T. Jost, New York University, United States

Reviewed by: Snizhana Holyk, Uzgorods‘kij Nacional'nij Universitet, Ukraine

Melanie Langer, Sorbonne Universités, France

David Bowie, University of Alaska Anchorage, United States