Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije
Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei
Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
Series Historia et Sociologia, 34, 2024, 1
UDK 009                     Annales, Ser. hist. sociol., 34, 2024, 1, pp. 1-132, Koper 2024  ISSN 1408-5348
KOPER 2024
Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije
Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei
Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
Series Historia et Sociologia, 34, 2024, 1
UDK 009                               ISSN 1408-5348
e-ISSN 2591-1775
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
ISSN 1408-5348 UDK 009  Letnik 34, leto 2024, številka 1
e-ISSN 2591-1775
UREDNIŠKI ODBOR/
COMITATO DI REDAZIONE/
BOARD OF EDITORS: 
Roderick Bailey (UK), Gorazd Bajc, Simona Bergoč, Furio Bianco (IT), 
Aleksandr Cherkasov (RUS), Lucija Čok, Lovorka Čoralić (HR), Darko 
Darovec, Devan Jagodic (IT), Aleksej Kalc, Urška Lampe, Avgust Lešnik, 
John Jeffries Martin (USA), Robert Matijašić (HR), Darja Mihelič, Vesna 
Mikolič, Luciano Monzali (IT), Edward Muir (USA), Vojislav Pavlović 
(SRB), Peter Pirker (AUT), Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premović (MNE), 
Andrej Rahten, Žiga Oman, Vida Rožac Darovec, Mateja Sedmak, 
Lenart Škof, Polona Tratnik, Boštjan Udovič, Marta Verginella, Špela 
Verovšek, Tomislav Vignjević, Paolo Wulzer (IT), Salvator Žitko
Glavni urednik/Redattore capo/
Editor in chief: Darko Darovec
Odgovorni urednik/Redattore 
responsabile/Responsible Editor: Salvator Žitko
Uredniki/Redattori/Editors: Urška Lampe, Boštjan Udovič, Žiga Oman, Veronika Kos 
Prevajalka/Traduttrice/Translator: Petra Berlot (it.)
Oblikovalec/Progetto grafico/
Graphic design: Dušan Podgornik , Darko Darovec
Tisk/Stampa/Print: Založništvo PADRE d.o.o.
Založnika/Editori/Published by: Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper / Società storica del 
Litorale - Capodistria© / Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije 
družbe, kulture in okolja / Institute IRRIS for Research, Development 
and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment / Istituto IRRIS di 
ricerca, sviluppo e strategie della società, cultura e ambiente©
Sedež uredništva/Sede della redazione/
Address of Editorial Board: 
SI-6000 Koper/Capodistria, Garibaldijeva/Via Garibaldi 18 
e-mail: annaleszdjp@gmail.com, internet: https://zdjp.si
Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 31. 03. 2024.
Sofinancirajo/Supporto finanziario/
Financially supported by: 
Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko 
dejavnost Republike Slovenije (ARIS)
Annales - Series Historia et Sociologia izhaja štirikrat letno.
Maloprodajna cena tega zvezka je 11 EUR.
Naklada/Tiratura/Circulation: 300 izvodov/copie/copies
Revija Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / La rivista Annales, Series 
Historia et Sociologia è inserita nei seguenti data base / Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: 
Clarivate Analytics (USA): Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) in/and Current Contents / Arts & Humanities; 
IBZ, Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); Sociological Abstracts (USA); Referativnyi Zhurnal 
Viniti (RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS 
(NL); Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
To delo je objavljeno pod licenco / Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza / This work is licensed under a 
Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0.
Navodila avtorjem in vsi članki v barvni verziji so prosto dostopni na spletni strani: https://zdjp.si.
Le norme redazionali e tutti gli articoli nella versione a colori sono disponibili gratuitamente sul sito: https://zdjp.si/it/.
The submission guidelines and all articles are freely available in color via website https://zdjp.si/en/.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Karmen Šterk: Gossiping Going South: 
Anthropological Insights into Gossip 
on a Dalmatian Island .............................................. 1
Il pettegolezzo che va a sud: 
Approfondimenti antropologici 
sul gossip in un’isola dalmata
Senčna stran govoric: 
antropološka perspektiva 
opravljanja na dalmatinskem 
otoku
Simona Kukovič, Paul James Pope, 
Hope Dewell-Gentry & Miro Haček: 
Exploring the Demographics of 
Conspiratorial Beliefs About Covid-19 
in the United States and European Union: 
A Case Approach ..................................................... 17
Esplorare i dati demografici delle 
credenze cospiratorie sul covid-19 
negli Stati uniti e nell’Unione europea: 
Un approccio a casi specifici
Raziskovanje demografije zarotniških 
prepričanj o covid-19 v Združenih državah 
Amerike in Evropski uniji: študiji primerov
Nika Ferbežar & Alja Kopinič: 
Za trans otroke gre: integrativni pregled 
literature o izkušnjah trans mladih 
z vzgojno-izobraževalnim sistemom ........................ 29
Alunni e alunne transgender: 
revisione integrativa della letteratura 
sulle esperienze dei giovani transgender 
nel sistema educativo
Transgender Students: An Integrative 
Review of the Literature on 
Trans Youth’s Experiences With the 
Educational System
Otto Gerdina & Slavko Kurdija: 
Ageism in Slovenia: 
Assessing Differences 
between 2008 and 2022 ........................................ 45
L’ageismo in Slovenia: 
Valutazione delle differenze 
tra il 2008 e il 2022
Starizem v Sloveniji: 
ocenjevanje razlik med 
letoma 2008 in 2022
Marko Savić & Todor Lakić: 
Rethinking Debt-Trap 
Diplomacy: A Case Study of 
Montenegro’s Debt 
to China .................................................................. 59
Ripensare la diplomazia 
della trappola del debito: 
Uno studio di caso sul debito 
del Montenegro nei confronti della Cina
Ponovni razmislek diplomacije 
dolžniške pasti: študija primera 
dolga Črne gore do Kitajske
Andrej Lovšin: 
Vključevanje Slovenije 
v zvezo Nato: prispevek 
obrambnega in zunanjega 
ministrstva ............................................................... 75
Adesione della Slovenia 
alla NATO: Contributo 
del Ministero della difesa 
e degli affari esteri
Slovenia Joining Nato: 
Contribution of the Ministry 
of Defense and Foreign 
Affairs
Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS
UDK 009                                  Volume 34, Koper 2024, issue 1                                  ISSN 1408-5348
e-ISSN 2591-1775
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
Dijana Vučković & Marjan Premović: 
Understanding the Meaning of 
Traditional Fairy Tales in 
Contemporary Educational 
Context – Teaching for 
Critical Thinking ..................................................... 95
Comprendere il significato 
delle fiabe tradizionali nel 
contesto educativo 
contemporaneo – insegnamento 
per il pensiero critico
Razumeti pomen 
ljudskih pravljic v kontekstu 
sodobnega učenja – 
učiti za kritično 
razmišljanje
Alen Žunić: Hotelsko-turistička 
arhitektura Aleksandra Dragomanovića 
na Jadranu i refleksije nizozemske 
projektantske škole u Hrvatskoj ............................. 111
The Hotel and Tourism Architecture of 
Aleksandar Dragomanović on the Adriatic 
and Reflections of the Dutch School of 
Architecture in Croatia
Hotelska in turistična arhitektura 
Aleksandra Dragomanovića na Jadranu 
in refleksije Nizozemske oblikovne šole 
na Hrvaškem
Kazalo k slikam na ovitku ..................................... 133
Indice delle foto di copertina ................................. 133
Index to images on the cover ................................. 133
45
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
received: 2023-08-27                   DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2024.04
AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES 
BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022
Otto GERDINA
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: otto.gerdina@fdv.uni-lj.si
Slavko KURDIJA
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: slavko.kurdija@fdv.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT
Ageism is one of the most widespread forms of discrimination in Europe and one of the mechanisms for 
generating social inequalities, which is why it is essential to monitor its prevalence. This paper compared 
the prevalence of ageism in Slovenia in 2008 and in 2022 based on data from round four of the European 
Social Survey (ESS 2008) and the ESS web panel survey Cronos-2 (2022). The comparison showed that 
attitudes towards older people remained relatively positive, that there was an increase in the proportion of 
people who reported perceiving ageism and that there was a slight increase in awareness of the magnitude 
of the problem. At the three focus points we observed, gender emerged as a key demographic variable with 
a statistically significant impact.
Keywords: ageism, European Social Survey (ESS), Cronos-2 cross-national web panel study, public opinion, 
comparative analysis
L’AGEISMO IN SLOVENIA: VALUTAZIONE DELLE DIFFERENZE 
TRA IL 2008 E IL 2022
SINTESI
L’ageismo è una delle forme di discriminazione più diffuse in Europa e uno dei meccanismi di creazione 
delle disuguaglianze sociali, per questo è importante monitorarne la diffusione. Il presente documento 
confronta la diffusione dell’ageismo in Slovenia nel 2008 e nel 2022, sulla base dei dati dell’Indagine 
sociale europea - Onda 4 nel 2008 e del panel online dell’ESS – Cronos-2 nel 2022. Il confronto mostra che 
gli atteggiamenti nei confronti degli anziani sono ancora relativamente positivi, che c’è stato un aumento 
della percentuale di persone che percepiscono l’ageismo e che c’è stato un leggero aumento della con-
sapevolezza dell’entità del problema. Sui tre punti sostanziali che abbiamo esaminato, il genere è emerso 
come una variabile demografica chiave con un impatto statisticamente significativo.
Parole chiave: ageismo, Indagine sociale europea (European Social Survey – ESS), panel online Cronos-2, 
opinione pubblica, analisi comparativa
46
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
INTRODUCTION
Robert N. Butler defined ageism as “a process 
of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination 
against people because they are old” (Butler, 2002, 
12). Ageism is based on stereotypes, prejudices and 
discrimination (Tornstam, 2006). Stereotypes are 
“relatively fixed fragments in cognitive structuring 
of external reality, operating within the constraints 
of a certain culture” (Mrkaić, 2020, 66), that enable 
the categorisation of people into age groups. The 
negative effects of stereotypes appear when people 
use them to make implicit inferences about people’s 
abilities, competences and skills (Vauclair et al., 
2014), leading to prejudices and discriminatory 
behaviour (cf. Cuddy & Fiske, 2002).
Ageism occurs at both the individual level (Lev 
et al., 2018) and at the societal or structural level 
(Ayalon & Tesch-Römer, 2018b). It manifests in 
social interactions (Butler, 2006), influences the 
beliefs and expectations of older people through 
the mechanism of internalisation (Levy, 2009) and 
is embedded in the functioning of various sectors 
and institutions such as legal (Doron et al., 2018), 
care (World Health Organization, 2021), media 
(Gerdina, 2022; Loos & Ivan, 2018), workplace 
(Jyrkinen & McKie, 2012), and health institutions 
(Wyman et al., 2018).
A recent report by the World Health Organiza-
tion recognised ageism as a global problem (World 
Health Organization, 2021) responsible for the wid-
ening of social inequalities (Ayalon & Tesch-Römer, 
2018a). It has detrimental effects on older people’s 
well-being, since it conveys to them that they are 
not valued members of the community (Stokes, 
2019), and may lead to social isolation, since indi-
viduals who experience discriminatory behaviours 
are prone to restricting social interactions to avoid 
being discriminated against (Chen & Yang, 2014). 
Ageism is not only a problem affecting individual 
well-being but also a serious public health risk 
(World Health Organization, 2021). Several studies 
have shown that internalised negative beliefs about 
ageing and old age lead to a more pronounced 
risk of cardiovascular disease (Levy et al., 2002), 
increase the likelihood of the development of de-
mentia (Levy et al., 2016) and reduce will to live 
(Levy et al., 2000).
One of the hallmarks of ageism is the tendency 
to perceive older people as a homogeneous group 
(Gerdina, 2022). However, substantial differences 
exist within this demographic, ranging from diverse 
life experiences (Ferraro, 2018) to sociodemo-
graphic variability in terms of gender, ethnicity, 
socioeconomic status, and more (Thompson, 2017). 
Given the multitude of categories within the older 
population, it is reasonable to anticipate variations 
in experiences of and vulnerability to ageism. 
However, these variations are not universal, as a 
recent systematic review of the determinants of 
ageism against older people revealed. The study 
found mixed evidence regarding the effects of age, 
sex, education, cultural background, ethnicity, so-
cioeconomic status, religiosity, urban versus rural 
living and marital status on experiences of ageism 
(Marquez et al., 2020). These variations underscore 
the importance of considering the cultural, socio-
economic and political context when examining ex-
periences of ageism. They also emphasise the need 
for further exploration of the correlates of ageism 
within specific social environments.
Social environments that are characterised 
by rapid population ageing, such as is the case 
in Europe, are especially important areas of ob-
servation. There is strong evidence that ageism 
is directed mainly towards older adults (Ayalon, 
2014), meaning that an ageing population places 
more people at risk of ageism. Despite this, con-
temporary studies on the prevalence of ageism 
among the general population in Europe are rare, 
the last internationally comparable data on such 
prevalence in Europe being from the fourth wave 
of the European Social Survey (ESS) in 2008. Ac-
cording to the ESS, the highest levels of perceived 
ageism were found in East European countries 
(e.g. Czech Republic, Romania, Russia, Slovakia 
and Ukraine), while the lowest were in a mixture 
of countries (e.g. Portugal, Cyprus, Denmark, 
Norway and Switzerland) (Seddig et al., 2020). 
However, this might have changed in recent years, 
since according to some estimates, an increase in 
the proportion of older people in the population 
(especially when available economic resources do 
not increase to the same extent) portends negative 
attitudes towards the older people in that country 
(North & Fiske, 2015). The lack of more recent 
data is especially concerning in countries with the 
highest percentage of older people, many of which 
are located in Southern Europe–that is, according 
to the United Nations (2022), in each of Croatia, 
Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Serbia, Spain and 
Slovenia, over 21% of the population is older than 
65 years.
This article presents data on the prevalence of 
ageism in one of these countries, Slovenia. The case 
of Slovenia is especially interesting because among 
the 11 European countries that participated in the 
World Values Survey (WVS), it had the second high-
est proportion of respondents (74.8%) who agreed 
that older people were not treated with respect in 
2011 (Inglehart et al., 2014). This figure was only 
surpassed by Romania (85.3%), while countries such 
as Germany, Estonia and the Netherlands reported 
around 50% agreement (Inglehart et al., 2014).
47
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Given that the proportion of people aged 65 and 
over increased by almost a quarter between 2011 
and 2022 (from 16.6% to 21.3%; Statistical Office 
of the Republic of Slovenia, 2023), it is necessary 
to reassess the prevalence of ageism in Slovenia and 
measure the general population’s attitudes towards 
older people and age discrimination. This was car-
ried out in 2022 by OPRO, the Institute for Applica-
tive Studies, in cooperation with the Public Opinion 
and Mass Communication Research Centre, through 
the ESS web panel study, Cronos2.
The aim of this paper is to present data on at-
titudes towards older people and ageism in Slovenia 
in 2022 and to compare the figures with data from 
2008. The comparison is based on the remarkable 
opportunity offered by the replication of some of the 
questions from the European Social Survey. In ad-
dition to a comparison of summary data, the paper 
also expands the literature on ageism by presenting 
some structural differences at the level of specific 
subpopulations, particularly at measurement point 
2 (in 2022), which represents the current situation.
METHOD
The baseline measurement was the 2008 ESS, 
which included a comprehensive set of questions 
entitled ‘Expressions of ageism’ as a separate mod-
ule and was carried out in 30 European countries, 
including Slovenia1 (n = 1286) (Kurdija et al., 2010). 
The survey included 55 questions on experiences 
and perceptions of age discrimination and attitudes 
towards intergenerational solidarity.
The European Social Survey (ESS ERIC) is a 
renowned cross-national social science survey 
emphasising empirical observations of social phe-
nomena through systematic data collection and 
analysis. It aims to record attitudes, values and life 
practices among European societies, and its deduc-
tive approach involves formulating hypotheses 
based on existing theories and testing them using 
a quantitative data approach via questionaries and 
specific thematic blocks selected by open European 
tenders. The final questionaries were designed by 
eminent scientists from different disciplines (de-
pending on the topics covered), the Core Scientific 
Team and the well-supported feedback from the 
national coordinators.
The ESS’s research design relies on cross-sec-
tional survey data collection from a representative 
sample of individuals across multiple European 
countries. This allows researchers to capture a snap-
shot of social attitudes, behaviours and values at 
1 Since its launch in 2002, the ESS has also been implemented in Slovenia. The Public Opinion and Mass Communication Re-
search Centre at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana is a partner in the project (members of the core sci-
entific team: Dr. Brina Malnar and May Doušak) and the national coordinating team and the provider of the fieldwork (national 
coordinator: Dr. Slavko Kurdija).
a specific point in time. The cross-national scope 
of the ESS enables the comparison of social trends 
and structures across different cultural and political 
contexts.
The ESS sampling strategy was designed and 
is implemented to procure comparable sampling 
procedures in all participating countries. It follows 
the following fundamental principles: 1. samples 
should be representative of individuals aged 15 
years and older (without an upper age limit) resid-
ing in private households in the country, regardless 
of their ethnicity and citizenship; 2. the selection 
of individuals should adhere to strict principles of 
randomness and equal probability at each stage; 
3. the sampling frame in each country should be 
derived from the best possible statistical sources, 
which consist of a list of individuals from the 
Central Register of Population (or households or 
addresses); and 4. all countries are expected to 
strive for the highest possible response rate. The use 
of quota sampling or the inclusion of reserves or 
replacements for selected individuals at any stage is 
strictly prohibited.
To address potential imbalances in the sample, 
post-stratification weighting is applied. This correc-
tive measure adjusts the data to align with known 
population characteristics, thereby enhancing the 
generalisability of the findings to the entire popula-
tion.
Standardised questionnaires are a key tool of the 
ESS data collection process. Questionnaires cover 
a wide range of topics, including social attitudes, 
political beliefs and demographic information. 
The survey employs face-to-face interviews and 
self-completion methods, adapting to cultural and 
linguistic differences across participating countries. 
Prior to data collection, every national team should 
provide extensive interviewer training. The ESS 
places a strong emphasis on ethical considerations. 
Informed consent is obtained from all participants, 
ensuring they are fully aware of the survey’s purpose 
and how their data will be used. Anonymity and 
confidentiality are prioritised to protect the privacy 
of respondents. The survey complies with ethical 
standards and data protection regulations across 
European countries.
In summary, ESS is one of the most valid and 
reliable instruments for systematically monitoring 
attitudes and subjective perceptions in European 
countries. Its methodology has reached the high-
est level of standardisation in comparative social 
science research (Malnar & Kurdija, 2010), and the 
survey has been awarded the Descartes Prize, the 
48
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
highest European award in scientific research, for 
its achievements in ensuring consistency and the 
equivalence of methods cross-nationally.
The second measurement was the Cronos-2 
survey, which was conducted via online self-com-
pletion by respondents who initially participated 
in the ESS round 10 survey in 2020. Cronos-2 is 
the first cross-national online panel based on prob-
ability sampling and following the sophisticated 
methodological principles of the ESS survey. Twelve 
countries, including Slovenia, participated in this 
centrally coordinated online survey. The content 
modules for the six waves of the Cronos-2 survey 
were selected through a public call for tenders, two 
of which – Wave 3 and Wave 6 – were nationally 
specific. This means that national teams could in-
clude content of their own choice. Thus, Wave 3 of 
the Slovenian version of the Cronos-2 online panel 
(n = 564) included a broader set of questions on 
perceptions of ageism in Slovenia, among which a 
typical part of the questions was replicated specifi-
cally from the ageism module in round 4 of the ESS 
in 2008.
There are three aspects of ageism, which we 
look at in more detail in this article. The first con-
cerns attitudes towards older people and is based 
on question (A): ‘‘Using the scale below, please 
tell us how negative or positive are your personal 
feelings towards people over 70 in general. Please 
rate on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is extremely 
negative and 10 is extremely positive’’. The second 
concerns self-perceived discrimination and is de-
rived from question (B): ‘‘Tell me how often in the 
last year it has happened to you that someone has 
been prejudiced against you or treated you in an 
unequal way because of your age’’ (0 = never, 4 = 
very often). The third aspect of ageism concerns the 
general perception of ageism as a pressing prob-
lem in Slovenia in the form of question (C): ‘‘How 
pressing, if at all, would you say discrimination 
against people over 70 is in Slovenia?’’ (1 = very 
pressing, 2 = quite pressing, 3 = not very pressing, 
4 = not at all pressing). We began by analysing 
the three content items from a cross-temporal 
perspective and then examined how the structural 
characteristics of the population affected the ex-
pression of attitudes. For the structural variables, 
we used basic demographic variables: gender (two 
categories), age (four categories: up to 30, 31–45, 
46–60 and 61 years and over ), education (three 
categories: lower, middle and high, recoded from 
the seven values of the ISCED classification) and 
income (three categories, recoded from deciles of 
household income; 1–3 = low, 4–7 = middle and 
8–10 = high) and two attitudinal control variables. 
The was subjective assessment of the material situ-
ation (two categories; based on question: ‘Feeling 
about household’s income nowadays’, where the 
first answer (living comfortably on present income) 
represented the category ‘comfortably’ and the 
other answers (coping, difficult and very difficult) 
represented the category ‘non-comfortably’. The 
second control variable was subjective assessment 
of own age (five categories; based on question ‘Tell 
us which age group you belong to the most’, if you 
see yourself as very young, choose number 1, if you 
see yourself as very old, choose the last number 9, 
if you see yourself somewhere in between, choose 
one of the numbers in between. The five categories 
were derived from the following scale recoding: 
1–3 = 1, 4 = 2, 5 = 3, 6 = 4, 7–9=5).
RESULTS
In the analysis, we wanted to explore respond-
ents’ views on three issues: attitudes towards older 
people (A); perceptions of personal discrimination 
(B); and general perceptions of ageism (C). Since 
the three questions were measured with slightly dif-
ferent scales, we decided to standardise the results 
by showing the percentile values of the averages.
Focusing on question A, the 2008 ESS showed 
an average percentile of 79.3%, while the 
Cronos-2 study gave a slightly lower average, of 
78.0%. These average values were derived from an 
11-point scale ranging from 0 (extremely negative 
attitudes) to 10 (extremely positive attitudes). This 
meant that respondents generally showed positive 
attitudes towards older people. The difference 
between the two measures was insignificant, 
amounting to only 1.3%. This shows that attitudes 
towards older people remained relatively stable 
over 15 years, and only minimal changes were 
observed.
Comparing the results measured at both time 
points for question B, we could see that a relatively 
low value was measured at both time points. How-
ever, the perceptions of personal discrimination in-
creased from 16% in 2008 to 28.7% in 2022. In this 
case, the range of the percentile value was taken to 
mean that at 0%, the respondent had never been 
discriminated against based on age, and at 100%, 
they had been discriminated against very often. 
Because of the slightly less sensitive scale, we also 
presented this question (B2) as a bi-nominal type 
variable (0 = never experienced such discrimina-
tion and 1 = all other responses) and compared only 
the proportions of responses with a value of 0. We 
could see that the proportion of respondents who 
had never experienced ageism was 64.2% in 2008 
and decreased to 40.7% in 2022. This negative dif-
ference of 23.5% showed a noticeable decrease in 
the proportion of individuals who had not experi-
enced any form of ageism.
49
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
For question C, we presented the data at the level 
of the sum of the responses ‘pressing’ and ‘very 
pressing’. It should be noted, however, that the two 
questions were slightly different. The 2008 question 
included discrimination against people under 20 
years of age2, while the 2022 question explicitly 
asked about discrimination against older people. 
We could see that the 2008 figure was 38.8% and 
the 2022 figure was 42.7%. Although not directly 
comparable, these significantly different figures 
indicated a tendency towards increased sensitivity 
to discrimination based on age.
We were also interested in differences in at-
titudes according to the typical subpopulations in 
the 2022 study. In question (A) attitudes towards the 
older people we could see significant differences. 
First, in terms of gender, women were more likely 
than men to express positive attitudes towards older 
people. The difference in means was 7.51 for men 
and 8.09 for women (overall mean: 7.80; sig.3: 
.000). Second, age also had a significant impact 
on these attitudes. A comparison of the averages 
showed a linear increase in the averages according 
to age group (up to 30 years = 7.14, 31–45 years = 
7.70, 46–60 years = 8.15, 61 and over = 8.23; over-
all average 7.80; sig.: .000), meaning that positive 
attitudes towards older people increased with age. 
Similarly significant gender and age differences 
were also found in the 2008 ESS data. In the case of 
education, the differences were also significant, but 
slightly less so than for gender and age (sig.: .020). 
In particular, the category of less educated stood 
2 The question from the ESS 2008 reads: ‘‘What would you say is the extent to which discrimination against people on the grounds 
of their age – whether they are old or young –is a pressing problem in Slovenia, if at all?’’
3 To analyse statistical differences in means between groups, an ANOVA test in the ‘Compare Means’ analysis was employed using 
SPSS. This also applies to the analyses below.
4 The regression analysis was carried out using SPSS. A tabular output of the regression coefficients is included in the Appendix. This also 
applies to the analyses below.
out with a significantly lower average (i.e. a less 
pronounced positive attitude towards older people). 
At the same time, income and household material 
status did not show statistically significant differ-
ences. In combination with the selected explanatory 
variables, the strength of gender and age as stronger 
predictors of attitudes toward older people was also 
clearly confirmed by a simple regression analysis4 
model.
For question (B1) perception of personal discrim-
ination, the picture of the structural analysis was 
very similar to question A, with the difference being 
that there was a slightly more significant difference 
in age than in gender. Women perceived personal 
discrimination to a greater extent than men at the 
average level (women 1.26, men 1.04; overall aver-
age 1.15; sig.: .000). The averages on a scale from 
0 (never) to 4 (very often) for the age categories 
were 1.74, 1.06, 1.00 and 0.85 for up to 30 years, 
31–45 years, 46–60 years and 61 years and over, 
respectively (overall average 1.15; sig.: .000). What 
is interesting here is that more self-reported age dis-
crimination was found in the category of up to 30 
years. The same pattern was also found in the 2008 
ESS data. For question B1, education also showed a 
certain degree of significant differentiation (lower 
= 1.29, middle = 1.24, high = 0.98; overall average 
1.14; sig.: .020), where we could see in particular 
that a higher proportion of discrimination was ex-
perienced by those with lower and middle educa-
tion. The regression model confirmed the same; for 
question B1, the most significant differences were 
Question ESS 2008 C2 2022 The Difference
 100th
(A) Attitudes towards older people 79.3 78.0 -1.3
(B1) Perception of personal discrimination 16.3 28.7 +12.5
 % of respondents: never (%)
(B2) Perception of personal discrimination 64.2 40.7 -23.5
 Sum of answers: pressing + very pressing (%)
(C) General perception of ageism 38.8 42.7 +3.9
Table 1: Comparison of selected variables in a cross-temporal perspective (Source: the authors).
50
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
generated by age, followed by education and, to a 
lesser extent (but still significant), gender. Income 
and household material status again dropped out of 
the model as variables with no significant explana-
tory power5.
Unlike the previous two questions, third question 
(C, assessment of the general perception of ageism 
as a pressing social problem), significantly differ-
entiated only in terms of gender and, interestingly, 
household material status. The regression model 
also confirmed both these variables as significant. 
A comparison of averages by subpopulation showed 
that women perceived ageism as a pressing problem 
significantly more. On a scale of 1 (very pressing) 
to 4 (not at all pressing), the averages were 2.71 for 
men and 2.48 for women, with an overall average 
of 2.60 (sig.: .000). In the subjective assessment of 
the household’s material situation, measured in two 
categories (getting by without problems and getting 
by with difficulty), we could see that ageism was 
perceived as a pressing problem to a significantly 
greater extent by those who were getting by with 
difficulty (mean: 2.37) than by those who were 
getting by without problems (mean: 2.72; overall 
mean: 2.59; sig.: .000).
DISCUSSION
Data from the Cronos-2 ESS web panel showed 
that public opinion was still relatively favour-
able towards older people in 2022, despite a 
sharp increase in the proportion of older people 
in the population, contrary to the assumption 
that a higher proportion of older people in the 
population predicts negative attitudes towards 
older people (North & Fiske, 2015). One possible 
interpretation of the (almost) unchanged attitudes 
towards older people is that when the proportion 
of older people increases, more negative attitudes 
towards older people only occur when social 
resources are (perceived to be) scarce, which is 
in line with the classical realist theory of inter-
group conflict (Sherif, 1966), according to which 
competition for scarce resources can be the cause 
of the emergence of negative intergroup attitudes. 
The Cronos-2 web panel was implemented during 
post-Covid-19 pandemic mitigation measures, 
when EU member states, including Slovenia, 
were encouraged to provide subsidies and public 
investment and able to obtain additional funding 
(e.g. from 28/7/2021 onwards, under the Recovery 
and Resilience Plan), which put large amounts 
of money into circulation and reduced the sense 
5 As well as subjective age, which does not emerge as a significant predictor in any of the analyses. In all cases, it is better replaced by age 
categories of actual age.
6 For example, in Slovenia, the initial distribution of vaccines was limited to certain age and occupational groups, and older people faced 
restrictions on shopping at certain times.
of scarcity of societal resources. The coronavirus 
pandemic could also have had a qualitative impact 
on attitudes towards old age. Coronavirus has had 
a disproportionate impact on the health and well-
being of older people (Oostlander et al., 2022). 
Early epidemiological data showed that the virus 
poses a major threat, especially to older people 
(Bergström & Edström, 2022). In the absence of 
public opinion data on attitudes towards old age 
during the pandemic, media coverage can be used 
as an indicator of public opinion. Representations 
of old age in the media are important because they 
indicate what the dominant social representations 
of old age are in a given period (Gerdina, 2022). 
Since media coverage of tragic events, of which 
the coronavirus pandemic was undoubtedly one, 
usually includes judgements about the social value 
of the victims of tragedies (in this case, mostly 
older people) and influences perceptions of social 
distance and social differences, it is possible that 
the coronavirus pandemic (at least temporarily) 
reinforced positive attitudes towards older people. 
Indeed, research on traditional media coverage as 
well as representations of old age on social net-
working sites during the pandemic has shown that 
older people were represented in the media as a 
social group deserving community support (Mor-
gan et al., 2021) and as a vulnerable and socially 
disadvantaged group in need of state support and 
protection (Døssing & Craciun, 2022).
In relation to perceptions of personal discrimi-
nation, we found that in 2022, more than half of 
respondents (58.5%) had experienced prejudice 
or discrimination on the grounds of age at least 
once in the previous year, which is in line with 
the finding that ageism is the most prevalent 
form of discrimination in Europe (Abrams et al., 
2009; Abrams et al., 2011; Swift et al., 2018) and 
emphasises that researchers should devote more 
research attention to it (Ayalon, 2014). The propor-
tion of respondents perceiving age discrimination 
in Slovenia increased significantly compared to 
2008, which may have been due to the increased 
sensitivity to discrimination experienced by differ-
ent age groups as a result of age-based measures 
to prevent the spread of coronavirus6. However, 
it should be noted that an increase in actual dis-
crimination cannot be completely ruled out. The 
increased sensitivity to all forms of discrimina-
tion in 2022 compared to 2008 could also have 
been influenced by ‘woke’ movements such as 
#MeToo or the establishment of the Advocate of 
the Principle of Equality in Slovenia, which has 
51
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
since 2016 been raising public awareness about 
different forms of discrimination based on per-
sonal circumstances, including age (Advocate of 
the Principle of Equality, 2016). Regardless of 
the reasons for the increase in the perception and 
reporting of personal age discrimination, the fact 
that in 2022, more than half of respondents had 
experienced prejudice or discrimination based on 
age at least once in the previous year is a testimony 
to the urgency of taking measures to reduce age 
discrimination in Slovenia. Ageism has a negative 
impact on quality of life and has been correlated 
with lower levels of happiness (Jung & Kim, 2023), 
a reduced will to live (Levy et al., 2000) and a 
range of detrimental effects on the health of older 
people (Levy et al., 2020).
Our results regarding perceived ageism highlight 
that policies, programmes and strategies are needed 
to reduce ageism. For example, to reduce ageism 
among older people, Nelson (2016) suggested that 
old age and ageing should be transformed into a 
time of positive activity, growth and optimism for 
the future; that positive intergenerational contact 
within families should be strengthened by promot-
ing stable and positive family relationships; and 
that psychologists and health professionals should 
be educated about ageism so that ageist stereotypes 
and prejudices do not take root among those who 
work directly with older people. In 2022, about 
two out of five respondents identified ageism as 
a pressing social problem, indicating a relatively 
broad awareness of the issue and suggesting that 
the abovementioned strategies to reduce ageism in 
Slovenia would enjoy relatively broad public sup-
port.
Interestingly, the proportion of respondents who 
considered ageism to be a pressing social problem 
in 2022 was comparable to that found in 2008. It 
should be noted, however, that the 2008 question 
covered attitudes towards ageism across the age 
spectrum, including discrimination against people 
under 20, whereas the 2022 question specifically 
focused on discrimination against those aged 70 
years or older. Given the narrower focus of the 
2022 question compared to the 2008 question, it 
can be assumed that if both questions were worded 
similarly, the proportion of respondents considering 
ageism to be a pressing social problem in Slovenia 
would show a stronger increase.
Regarding structural differences at the level of 
specific subpopulations, we found gender to be 
the only demographic variable with a statistically 
significant impact across all three variables. This 
clearly shows that society has an influence on the 
formation of gender roles and expectations, which 
may be reflected in different attitudes towards old 
age. Even though Slovenia has been characterised 
by there being a high proportion of women in full-
time employment since the 1960s (Jogan, 2004) and 
highly educated women since at least the 1980s 
(Rener & Kralj, 2015), neither the full-time employ-
ment of both genders nor the relatively small gender 
wage gap at the population level have significantly 
changed the position of women in the private 
sphere, since the ideology that polarises social 
ideals of masculinity and femininity has proven to 
be very persistent (Rener et al., 2008). Men fulfil 
(their own and society’s) expectations ‘outside the 
home’, where there are also benchmarks of suc-
cess and social recognition, while women fulfil 
their expectations ‘inside the home’ by performing 
duties related to household care, motherhood and 
family life (Oakley, 2000). The latter could lead 
women to be more concerned about older people. 
On the other hand, men are more often associated 
with the role of protector or as individuals who are 
less involved in providing care to others, which 
could lead to them having less empathy towards 
older people. In Slovenia, women are the primary 
caregivers for older family members (Hrženjak, 
2010) and are more active in maintaining inter-
generational kinship ties (Stratton & Moore, 2007), 
making them more likely than men to have frequent 
contact with older people. This frequent interaction 
could contribute to a better understanding of older 
people’s experiences, and consequently, to greater 
concern about ageism. Indeed, several authors have 
found that a higher number of positive interactions 
with older people has a positive effect on attitudes 
towards older people (Peacock & Talley, 1982; 
Nelson, 2019), which may also explain why older 
respondents had more positive attitudes towards 
older people than did younger respondents – that 
is, social attitudes are characterised by relatively 
strong and stable levels of age homophily (Smith 
et al., 2014). The fact that older respondents had 
more positive attitudes towards older people is also 
in line with the social identity theory, which posits 
that people are inclined to value their in-group and 
derogate out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
Regarding age differences in perceptions of 
personal discrimination, the Cronos-2 survey 
confirmed that young people perceived the highest 
levels of age discrimination (Kessler et al., 1999). 
This shows that young people are often over-
looked victims of ageism (Ayalon, 2013), which 
is reflected among the scientific community itself, 
which has mainly focused on ageism among older 
people (Chasteen et al., 2021) and assumes that 
age becomes a more powerful factor in shaping 
social judgements after middle age, when there is 
also a greater likelihood of being exposed to age-
ism (North & Fiske, 2012). The increased research 
and policy attention to ageism among older people 
52
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
is to some extent understandable when the con-
sequences of ageism for older and young people 
are considered. As Garstka et al. (2004) noted, 
young people’s perceptions of ageism do not have 
a negative impact on quality of life. For example, 
if young people are ridiculed because of their age 
when they form a political party or run for a high-
status position, this is less likely to have an long-
lasting negative impact on their well-being, since 
they are aware that their situation is temporary 
because they will eventually leave their group and 
enter middle age, which represents the most ad-
vantageous position on the age continuum (Jowell, 
2009; Swift et al., 2018). Conversely, older people 
cannot leave their age category, so ageism has a 
potentially more negative impact on their quality 
of life (Garstka et al., 2004). The latter mirrors 
findings from other studies using the fourth wave 
ESS data that show that experiencing ageism has a 
negative effect on physical and mental well-being 
in old age (Kim & Jung, 2021).
However, the data on perceptions of personal 
discrimination can also be read in another way. It 
may be that older people experience the same, if 
not higher, levels of age discrimination as young 
people but do not perceive them as such, at least 
not to the same extent as young people. Social 
norms and values change over time and generations 
(Leijen et al., 2022), and it seems that negative 
attitudes towards discrimination in general, and 
consequently, higher sensibility towards perceiving 
any type of discrimination, are more characteristic 
of the younger generation. Using the fourth wave 
of ESS data, Ayalon (2014), for example, found that 
younger respondents perceived not only more age 
discrimination but also more discrimination based 
on sex and ethnicity. It may be that younger genera-
tions have easier access to information on discrimi-
nation and have experienced a greater emphasis on 
social justice in the education system. For instance, 
in Slovenia, an ethics and society class that tackles 
the issue of discrimination was introduced in pri-
mary education in 1999 (Šimenc et al., 2012).
Another explanation is that young and older peo-
ple experience different forms of ageism (Iversen et 
al., 2009). In line with the content model of stereo-
types, social groups are assessed on the dimensions 
of warmth and competence (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002), 
where competence refers to independence, skill, 
self-confidence and ability and warmth refers to 
good nature, trustworthiness, honesty and kindness. 
The stereotype content model suggests that a social 
group is likely to be stereotyped as cold if it is per-
ceived to be a rival and as warm if it is perceived 
to be an ally (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002). Phalet and 
Poppe (1997), in a study of European national ste-
reotypes, found that older people were judged to be 
intellectually incompetent, less ambitious and less 
responsible than young people but, in contrast, also 
perceived to be friendlier and warmer. The biases 
revealed in the study by Fiske et al. (1999) further 
show that older people receive patronising attitudes 
characterised by pity and sympathy, which may be 
difficult to perceive as a form of discrimination.
The lower perception of personal discrimination 
among older people may also be a consequence 
of the normalisation of age discrimination. Due 
to the pervasiveness of ageism and the fact that 
older people have been exposed to it for the long-
est time, it is possible that older people are more 
likely to accept unequal treatment in old age as 
unproblematic. Jung and Kim (2023), for example, 
argued that victims of age discrimination may find 
a degree of comfort in the fact that they are not 
the only ones experiencing discrimination or that 
they assess their own situation in comparison to 
that of others and normalise it. Future research will 
need to explore the differences in awareness of 
age discrimination between young and old people 
and to look more closely at the forms of ageism 
experienced by young and old people.
The survey also showed some statistically 
significant differences in attitudes towards older 
people and perceptions of personal discrimina-
tion depending on the respondent’s education. In 
contrast to studies that examined the relationship 
between education and perceived ethnic dis-
crimination, which have shown that being racially 
conscious is associated with higher levels of per-
ceived discrimination (Gary, 1995), in our study, 
the less and middle educated perceived more age 
discrimination, suggesting that education may act 
as a buffer against the experience of ageism. Ingle-
hart and Baker (2000) found that improvements in 
education reinforce social norms that oppose gen-
eral discrimination. The least educated also have 
slightly less positive attitudes towards older people, 
raising the possibility that education may act not 
only as a protective but also as a deterrent to age 
discrimination.
The assessment of household material status in 
relation to attitudes towards the older people and 
perceptions of personal discrimination was not 
statistically significant in our study, and therefore 
contradicts theories of social stratification accord-
ing to which members of social groups with low 
social status are more likely to experience discrimi-
nation (Fiske, 2010). The absence of an association 
between low social status and personal perceptions 
of discrimination could be explained by potential 
strategies used by members of stigmatised groups 
to minimise the extent to which they personally 
feel discriminated against, as Crocker and Major 
(1989) pointed out. However, we cannot confirm 
53
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
this with the available data. Other differences in at-
titudes with respect to typical subpopulations were 
not large and suggest that there were no significant 
differences in attitudes between subpopulations. 
This could indicate that there is a broadly accepted 
consensus on attitudes towards ageism.
CONCLUSION
It is difficult to know the extent to which the 
rise in the reporting of ageism is a consequence of 
the greater prevalence of ageism or awareness of 
ageism as a social problem that has increased in 
recent years. With the data we have from 2008 and 
2022, it is not possible to predict how perceptions 
of age discrimination have been affected by events 
that occurred in Slovenia during the period under 
review, such as the global financial crisis of 2008, 
the creation of the Advocate of the Principle of 
Equality in 2016, different social movements and 
the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Regardless, the 
data from 2022 clearly show that ageism is wide-
spread in Slovenia, leading to a range of probable 
negative impacts on people’s quality of life, well-
being and health. Legislative changes adopted in 
recent years to protect against age discrimination, 
such as the Act of 21 April 2016 on protection 
against discrimination (The Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia, 2016), have clearly not been 
sufficiently effective in preventing age discrimi-
nation. More efforts are needed in policies and 
programmes to reduce ageism, such as initiatives 
aimed at more positive media coverage of older 
and younger generations; educational programmes 
on old-age and ageing specifically targeted at the 
least educated; interventions to promote stable and 
positive family relationships and social support, 
especially among men; and interventions to train 
and educate about age prejudice and discrimi-
nation on both sides of the age spectrum. Such 
policies and programmes need to be informed by 
high-quality and nationally representative data on 
ageism, while more detailed comparative research 
is needed to assess the level of age discrimination 
and more accurately understand social changes in 
this domain. In addition, we should aim to repeat 
the entire ageism module from the ESS 2008 every 
few years, with a few additional content upgrades 
and, of course, within the same level of methodo-
logical accuracy as the ESS survey. As Applewhite 
(2017) said, ageing is inevitable, but living in an 
ageist society is not.
METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
Regarding limitations, it is worth mentioning 
that the two measurements were carried out us-
ing different data collection methods and that the 
sample size and completeness were, of course, not 
identical. The first measurement, in 2008, was con-
ducted using a face-to-face survey method, with a 
sample response rate of approximately 60% among 
1286 respondents. The second one, which was 
conducted by online self-completion and included 
individuals who agreed to being a panel of respond-
ents for a year and a half (six survey waves), had 
(in wave 3, where ageism questions were included) 
564 respondents and a response rate of around 
30% – regarding the ESS 2020 mother survey gross 
sample. The expected higher dropout in the second 
measurement and possible discrepancies in the 
sample structure of the web panel were mitigated 
using combined weights. These were designed for 
the Cronos-2 project for all countries at a high 
level of complexity because they included various 
(demographic and attitudinal) dimensions to correct 
possible discrepancies in the sample structure ei-
ther because of the data collection approach or the 
lower response rate of the web panel measurement. 
Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe that 
we have data of sufficient quality and reliability 
to allow for both situational analysis and cross-
temporal comparisons, especially since a broader 
methodological and cross-national analysis of the 
sample, both in the mother survey (ESS round 4) and 
in the web panel (Cronos-2), shows that Slovenia is 
one of the most prosperous among ESS participating 
countries.
54
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
Appendix – A Tabular Output of the Regression Coefficients
A (w3siq41)
Coefficients(a)
Model  Unstd. Coeff. Std. Coeff.
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
  B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 6,2659 0,5579   11,2303 0,0000    
Gender 0,5212 0,1598 0,1422 3,2626 0,0012 0,9571 1,0448
Age (4) 0,4140 0,0948 0,2259 4,3685 0,0000 0,6794 1,4720
S. Age (5) -0,0997 0,0811 -0,0639 -1,2295 0,2195 0,6727 1,4866
Education (3) 0,1866 0,1122 0,0757 1,6631 0,0969 0,8759 1,1417
Income (3) -0,1395 0,1279 -0,0533 -1,0902 0,2761 0,7601 1,3156
S. Material Status (2) -0,0586 0,1827 -0,0154 -0,3207 0,7486 0,7897 1,2662
a Dependent Variable: (A) Using the scale below, please tell us how negative or positive are your personal feelings towards people 
over 70 in general.
 
B1 (w3siq42)
Coefficients(a)
Model  Unstd. Coeff. Std. Coeff.
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
  B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 1,3212 0,3516   3,7576 0,0002    
Gender 0,2136 0,1007 0,0921 2,1217 0,0343 0,9571 1,0448
Age (4) -0,3228 0,0597 -0,2784 -5,4051 0,0000 0,6794 1,4720
S. Age (5) 0,1039 0,0511 0,1053 2,0340 0,0425 0,6727 1,4866
Education (3) -0,1791 0,0707 -0,1149 -2,5337 0,0116 0,8759 1,1417
Income (3) 0,0885 0,0806 0,0534 1,0975 0,2729 0,7601 1,3156
S. Material Status (2) 0,1650 0,1151 0,0684 1,4330 0,1525 0,7897 1,2662
a Dependent Variable: (B) Tell me how often in the last year it has happened to you that someone has been prejudiced against 
you or treated you in an unequal way because of your age.
C (w3siq43)
Coefficients(a)
Model  Unstd. Coeff. Std. Coeff.
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
  B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,3269 0,2235   14,8852 0,0000    
Gender -0,2228 0,0639 -0,1522 -3,4872 0,0005 0,9581 1,0437
Age (4) 0,0324 0,0378 0,0445 0,8591 0,3907 0,6802 1,4703
S. Age (5) -0,0097 0,0325 -0,0156 -0,2998 0,7644 0,6735 1,4847
Education (3) 0,0388 0,0448 0,0394 0,8653 0,3873 0,8790 1,1376
Income (3) -0,0219 0,0510 -0,0210 -0,4288 0,6683 0,7603 1,3153
S. Material Status (2) -0,3516 0,0731 -0,2311 -4,8086 0,0000 0,7903 1,2654
a Dependent Variable: (C) How pressing, if at all, would you say discrimination against people over 70 is in Slovenia?
55
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
STARIZEM V SLOVENIJI: OCENJEVANJE RAZLIK MED LETOMA 2008 IN 2022
Otto GERDINA
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: otto.gerdina@fdv.uni-lj.si
Slavko KURDIJA
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: slavko.kurdija@fdv.uni-lj.si
POVZETEK
Starizem je ena najbolj razširjenih oblik diskriminacije v Evropi in pomeni enega od mehanizmov za 
ustvarjanje družbenih neenakosti, zato je pomembno spremljati njegovo razširjenost. V prispevku primer-
jamo razširjenost starizma v Sloveniji leta 2008 in leta 2022 na podlagi podatkov Evropske družboslovne 
raziskave (2008) in spletnega panela ESS – Cronos-2 (2022). Podatki, pridobljeni s spletnim panelom 
Cronos-2, so pokazali, da je bilo javno mnenje starim ljudem leta 2022 še vedno razmeroma naklonjeno, 
kar je v nasprotju s predpostavko, da večji delež starih ljudi napoveduje negativen odnos do starih ljudi. 
Delež respondentov, ki zaznavajo starizem, se je v primerjavi z letom 2008 povečal, kar je lahko posledica 
večje občutljivosti za diskriminacijo v zadnjih petnajstih letih. Glede strukturnih razlik na ravni specifičnih 
podpopulacij smo ugotovili, da je spol edina demografska spremenljivka, ki ima statistično značilen vpliv na 
treh opazovanih vsebinskih točkah (odnos do starih ljudi, zaznavanje osebne diskriminacije zaradi starosti, 
splošno dojemanje starizma). To kaže, da ima družba vpliv na oblikovanje spolnih vlog in pričakovanj, kar 
se lahko odraža v različnem odnosu do starosti. V obeh letih so največ starizma zaznavali mladi, kar kaže, 
da so mladi pogosto spregledana žrtev tovrstne diskriminacije. Manj in srednje izobraženi so zaznavali 
več starizma, kar nakazuje na varovalno funkcijo izobrazbe. Ocena materialnega stanja gospodinjstva pri 
odnosu do starih ljudi in zaznavi starizma v naši raziskavi ni bila statistično značilna in je torej v nasprotju s 
teorijami socialne stratifikacije, ki pravijo, da bodo družbene skupine z nižjim socialnim statusom verjetneje 
izkusile diskriminacijo. Stopnja strinjanja, da je starizem v Sloveniji pereč problem, je visoka, kar nakazuje, 
da bi strategije in ukrepi za zmanjšanje starizma uživali razmeroma široko javnomnenjsko podporo.
Ključne besede: starizem, Evropska družboslovna raziskava (European Social Survey – ESS), spletni panel Cronos-2, 
javno mnenje, primerjalna analiza
56
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, Dominic, Eilola, Tina M. & Hannah J. Swift 
(2009): Attitudes to Age in Britain 2004–2008. Technical 
report: Department for Work and Pensions. https://kar.
kent.ac.uk/23668/1/abrams_attitudes_age.pdf (last ac-
cess: 2023-08-10).
Abrams, Dominic, Russell, Pascale S., Vauclair, 
Melanie & Hannah J. Swift (2011): Ageism in Europe: 
Findings from the European Social Survey. Technical 
report: AgeUK. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/29733/ (last access: 
2023-08-10).
Advocate of the Principle of Equality (2016): Letno 
poročilo 2016. [Annual Report 2016]. https://zagovornik.si/
wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Porocilo-Zagovornika-nacela-
enakosti-za-leto-2016.pdf (last access: 2023-08-10). 
Applewhite, Ashton (2017): Lepota let: manifest proti 
starizmu. [This Chair Rocks: A Manifesto Against Ageism]. 
Nova Gorica, Eno.
Ayalon, Liat (2013): Feelings Towards Older vs. 
Younger Adults: Results From the European Social Survey. 
Educational Gerontology, 39, 12, 888–901.
Ayalon, Liat (2014): Perceived Age, Gender and 
Racial/Ethnic Discrimination in Europe: Results From the 
European Social Survey. Educational Gerontology, 40, 7, 
499–517.
Ayalon, Liat & Cemens Tesch-Römer (2018a): Intro-
duction to the Section: Ageism-Concept and Origins. In: 
Ayalon, Liat & Cemens Tesch-Römer (eds.): International 
Perspectives on Aging. New York, Springer Cham, 1–10. 
Ayalon, Liat & Cemens Tesch-Römer (2018b): 
Introduction to the Section: On the Manifestations and 
Consequences of Ageism. In: Ayalon, Liat & Cemens 
Tesch-Römer (eds.): Contemporary Perspectives on Age-
ism. New York, Springer Cham, 109–114.
Bergström, Annika & Maria Edström (2022): Invisible 
or Powerful? Ageing in a Mediatised Society. In: Falk 
Erhag, Hanna, Lagerlof Nilsson, Ulrika, Rydberg Sterner, 
Therese & Ingmar Skoog (eds.): A Multidisciplinary 
Approach to Capability in Age and Ageing. New York, 
Springer Cham, 191–205. 
Butler, Robert Neil (2002): Why Survive? Being Old in 
America. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Butler, Robert Neil (2006): Combating Ageism: A 
Matter of Human and Civil Rights. In: Butler, Robert Neil 
(ed.): Ageism in America. New York, International Lon-
gevity Center – USA, 1–5. 
Chasteen, Alison, Horhota, Michelle & Jessica J. 
Crumley-Branyon (2021): Overlooked and Underesti-
mated: Experiences of Ageism in Young, Middle-Aged 
and Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 
76, 7, 1323–1328.
Chen, Danhong & Tse-Chuan Yang (2014): The Path-
ways from Perceived Discrimination to Self-Rated Health: 
An Investigation of the Roles of Distrust, Social Capital, 
and Health Behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 104, 
64–73.
Crocker, Jennifer & Brenda Major (1989): Social 
Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Self Protective Properties of 
Stigma. Psychological review, 96, 5, 608–630.
Cuddy, J. C. Amy & Susan T. Fiske (2002): Doddering 
but Dear: Process, Content, and Function in Stereotyp-
ing of Older Persons. In: Nelson, D. Todd (ed.): Ageism: 
Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Cam-
bridge, MA, MIT Press, 3–26. 
Doron, I. Israel, Numhauser-Henning, Ann, Spanier, 
Benny, Georgantzi, Nena & Eugenio Mantovani (2018): 
Ageism and Anti-Ageism in the Legal System: A Review 
of Key Themes. In: Ayalon, Liat & Cemens Tesch-Römer 
(eds.): Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. New York, 
Springer Cham, 303–319.
Døssing, Mille Viktoria & Irina Catrinel Craciun 
(2022): From Hostile to Benevolent Ageism: Polarising 
Attitudes Towards Older Adults in German COVID-
19-Related Tweets. The Gerontologist, 62, 8, 1185–1195.
Ferraro, Kenneth F. (2018): The Gerontological Im-
agination: An Integrative Paradigm of Aging. New York, 
Oxford University Press.
Fiske, Susan T. (2010): Interpersonal Stratification: 
Status, Power and Subordination. In: Fiske, T. Susan, 
Gilbert, Daniel T. & Gardner Lindzey (eds.): Handbook of 
Social Psychology. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & 
Sons, Inc., 941–982. 
Fiske, Susan, Xu, Juan, Cuddy, Amy C. & Peter Glick 
(1999): (Dis)respecting Versus (Dis)Liking: Status and 
Interdependence Predict Ambivalent Stereotypes of 
Competence and Warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 
3, 473–489.
Garstka, Teri A., Schmitt, Michael Thomas, Brans-
combe, Nyla R. & Mary Lee Hummert (2004): How 
Young and Older Adults Differ in Their Responses to 
Perceived Age Discrimination. Psychology & Aging, 19, 
2, 326–335. 
Gary, Lawrence E. (1995): African American Men’s 
Perceptions of Racial Discrimination: A Sociocultural 
Analysis. Social Work Research, 19, 4, 207–217.
Gerdina, Otto (2022): Reprezentacije starosti v 
slovenskih dnevnih časopisih [Representations of Age 
in Slovenian Daily Newspapers]. Doctoral dissertation. 
Ljubljana, Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene 
vede.
Hrženjak, Majda (2010): (Neformalno) skrbstveno 
delo in družbene neenakosti. [Informal Care Work and 
Social Inequalities]. Theory & Practice, 47, 1, 156–171.
Inglehart, Ronald & Wayne E. Baker (2000): Moderni-
sation, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional 
Values. American Sociological Review, 65, 1, 19–51. 
Inglehart, Ronald, Haerpfer, Christian, Moreno, 
Alejandro, Welzel, Christian, Kizilova, Kseniya, Diez-
Medrano, Jaime, Lagos, Marta, Norris, Pippa, Ponarin, 
Eduardo & Bi Puranen (2014): World Values Survey: 
Round Six – Country-Pooled Datafile Version. Madrid, 
Spain, JD Systems Institute, www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp (last access: 2023-08-10).
57
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Iversen, Thomas Nicolaj, Larsen, Lars & Per Erik 
Solem (2009): A Conceptual Analysis of Ageism. Nordic 
Psychology, 61, 3, 4–22.
Jogan, Maca (2004): Spolna neenakost kot (ne)
samoumevna značilnost sodobne slovenske družbe [Gender 
Inequality as a (Non)Self-Evident Feature of Contemporary 
Slovenian Society]. In: Malnar, Brina & Ivan Bernik (eds.): 
Slovene Women and Slovenes at Four Eyes. Ljubljana, 
Fakulteta za družbene vede Univerze v Ljubljani, 265–288.
Jowell, Roger (2009): European Social Science Survey 
2008 [data file]. Ljubljana, Social Science Data Archive, 
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. 
http://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/opisi/ess08/ (last access: 2023-08-10).
Jung, Jong Hyun & Hyun-soo Harris Kim (2023): Does 
Misery Love Company? Multilevel Relationships Between 
Perceived Age Discrimination and Happiness Among Older 
Europeans. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 4, 6, 1234–1244.
Jyrkinen, Marjut & Linda McKie (2012): Gender, Age 
and Ageism: Experiences of Women Managers in Finland 
and Scotland. Work, Employment & Society, 26, 1, 61–77.
Kessler, Ronald C., Mickelson, Kristin D. & David R. 
Williams (1999): The Prevalence, Distribution, and Mental 
Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination in the United 
States. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 40, 3, 208–230.
Kim, Harris Hyun-Soo & Jong Hyun Jung (2021): Ageism, 
Religiosity, and Wellbeing Among Older Adults: Evidence 
from the European Social Survey (ESS4). Research on Aging, 
43, 5–6, 214–226.
Kurdija, Slavko, Malnar, Brina, Hafner Fink, Mitja, Uhan, 
Samo & Janez Štebe (2010): Slovensko javno mnenje 2008/2: 
Evropska družboslovna raziskava. [Slovene Public Opinion 
2008/2: European Social Survey]. Ljubljana, Fakulteta za 
družbene vede, Arhiv družboslovnih podatkov. http://www.
adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/opisi/sjm082/ (last access: 2023-08-10).
Leijen, Ingmar, van Herk, Hester & Anat Bardi (2022): 
Individual and Generational Value Change in an Adult 
Population, a 12-Year Longitudinal Panel Study. Scientific 
Reports, 12, 1, 17844.
Lev, Sagit, Wurm, Susanne & Liat Ayalon (2018): 
Origins of Ageism at the Individual Level: Contemporary 
Perspectives on Ageism. In: Ayalon, Liat & Cemens Tesch-
Römer (eds.): Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. 
New York, Springer Cham, 51–72.
Levy, Becca R. (2009): Stereotype Embodiment: A 
Psychosocial Approach to Aging. Current Directions in 
Psychological Science, 18, 6, 332–336. 
Levy, Becca R., Ashman, Ori & Itiel Dror (2000): To 
Be or Not to Be: The Effects of Aging Stereotypes on the 
Will to Live. Omega, 40, 3, 409–420.
Levy, Becca R., Ferrucci, Luigi, Zonderman, Alan B., 
Slade, Martin D., Troncoso, Juan & Susan M. Resnick (2016): 
A Culture-Brain Link: Negative Age-Oldotypes Predict Alzhei-
mer’s Disease Biomarkers. Psychology & Aging, 31, 1, 82–88. 
Levy, Becca R., Slade, Martin D., Kunkel, Suzanne R. 
& Stanislav V. Kasl (2002): Longevity Increased by Positive 
Self-Perceptions of Aging. Journal of Personality & Social 
Psychology, 83, 2, 261–270.
Levy, Becca R., Slade, Martin D., Chang, E-Shien, 
Kannoth, Sneha & Shi-Yi Wang (2020): Ageism Amplifies 
Cost and Prevalence of Health Conditions. The Geron-
tologist, 60, 1, 174–181.
Loos, Eugène & Loredana Ivan (2018): Visual Ageism 
in the Media. In: Ayalon, Liat & Cemens Tesch-Römer 
(eds.): Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. New York, 
Springer Cham, 163–176.
Malnar, Brina & Slavko Kurdija (2010): Evropska 
družboslovna raziskava: poskus kvalitativnega preskoka v 
primerjalnem raziskovanju. [European Social Science Re-
search: An Attempt to Make a Qualitative Leap in Comparative 
Research]. In: Toš, Niko & Karl H. Müller (eds.): Primerjalno 
družboslovje: metodološki in vsebinski vidiki, (Dokumenti 
SJM, 17). [Comparative Social Science: Methodological 
and Contextual Aspects, (SJM Documents, 17)]. Ljubljana, 
Fakulteta za družbene vede, IDV – CJMMK, 163–184.
Marquez, Sibila, Mariano, João, Mendonça, Joana, 
De Tavernier, Wouter, Hess, Moritz, Naegele, Laura, Pei-
xeiro, Filomena & Daniel Martins (2020): Determinants 
of Ageism Against Older Adults: A Systematic Review. 
International Journal of Environmental Research & Public 
Health, 17, 7, 2560. 
Morgan, Tessa, Wiles, Janine, Williams, Lisa & Merryn 
Gott (2021): COVID-19 and the Portrayal of Older People 
in New Zealand News Media. Journal of the Royal Society 
of New Zealand, 51, 1, 127–142.
Mrkaić, Jelena (2020): Reconstructing Culture 
Through Linguistically Coded Gender Stereotypes – The 
Case of Petar II Petrović Njegoš Phraseology. Annales, 
Series Historia et Sociologia, 30, 1, 65–77.
Nelson, D. Todd (2016): Promoting Healthy Aging 
by Confronting Ageism. American Psychologist, 71, 4, 
276–282.
Nelson, D. Todd (2019): Reducing Ageism: Which 
Interventions Work?. American Journal of Public Health, 
109, 8, 1066–1067. 
North, Michael S. & Susan T. Fiske (2012): An Incon-
venienced Youth? Ageism and Its Potential Intergenera-
tional Roots. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 5, 982–1009. 
North, Michael S. & Susan T. Fiske (2015): Modern 
Attitudes Toward Older Adults in the Aging World: A 
Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 
141, 5, 993–1021.
Oakley, Ann (2000): Gospodinja. [Housewife]. 
Ljubljana, Založba /*cf.
Oostlander, Samantha A., Champagne-Poirier, Oliver 
& Tracy L. O’Sullivan (2022): Media Portrayal of Older 
Adults Across Five Canadian Disasters. The International 
Journal of Aging & Human Development, 94, 2, 234–250.
Peacock, E. Winnifred & William M. Talley (1982): 
Intergenrational Contact: A Way to Counteract Ageism. 
Educational Gerontology, 10, 1, 13–24. 
Phalet, Karen & Edwin Poppe (1997): Competence 
and Morality Dimensions of National and Ethnic Ste-
reotypes: A Study in Six Eastern-European Countries. 
European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 6, 703–723.
58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 34 · 2024 · 1
Otto GERDINA & Slavko KURDIJA: AGEISM IN SLOVENIA: ASSESSING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2022, 45–58
Rener, Tanja, Humer, Živa, Žakelj, Tjaša, Vezovnik, 
Andreja & Alenka Švab (2008): Novo očetovstvo v 
Sloveniji. [New Fatherhood in Slovenia]. Ljubljana, 
Fakulteta za družbene vede Univerze v Ljubljani.
Rener, Tanja & Ana Kralj (2015): Slovenia: From ‘State 
Feminism’ to Back Vocals. In: Hassenstab, M. Christine & 
Sabrina P. Ramet Gender (eds.): (In)Equality and Gender 
Politics in Southeastern Europe. A Question of Justice. 
Basingstoke – New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 41–61. 
Seddig, Daniel, Maskileyson, Dina & Eldad Davidov 
(2020): The Comparability of Measures in the Ageism 
Module of the Fourth Round of the European Social Survey, 
2008–2009. Survey Research Methods, 14, 4, 351–364.
Sherif, Muzafer (1966): In Common Predicament: 
Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Coopera-
tion: The Robbers’ Cave Experiment. Norman, University 
of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Smith, Jeffrey A., McPherson, Miller & Lynn Smith-
Lovin (2014): Social Distance in the United States: Sex, 
Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily Among 
Confidants, 1985 to 2004. American Sociological Re-
view, 79, 3, 432–456.
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2023): 
Prebivalstvo – izbrani kazalniki, kohezijski regiji, Slovenija, 
polletno. [Population - Selected Indicators, Cohesion 
Regions, Slovenia, Semi-Annual]. https://pxweb.stat.si/
SiStatData/pxweb/sl/Data/-/05C1006S.px (last access: 2023-
08-10).
Stokes, Jeffrey E. (2019): Social Integration, Perceived 
Discrimination, and Self-Esteem in Mid- and Later Life: 
Intersections with Age and Neuroticism. Aging & Mental 
Health, 23, 6, 727–735.
Stratton, C. Doroty & Alinde J. Moore (2007): Frac-
tured Relationships and the Potential for Abuse of Older 
Men. In: Kosberg, Jordan I. (ed.): Abuse of Older men. New 
York, The Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press, 47–60.
Swift, Hannah J., Abrams, Dominic, Marques, Sibila, 
Vauclair, Christin-Melanie, Bratt, Christopher & Maria-
Luisa Lima (2018): Agisem in the European Region: Find-
ing from the European Social Survey. In: Ayalon, Liat & 
Cemens Tesch-Römer (eds.): International Perspectives on 
Aging. New York, Springer Cham, 441–459. 
Šimenc, Marjan, Čepič Vogrinčič, Mitja, Justin, 
Janez, Klemenčič, Eva, Kodelja, Zdenko, Sardoč, Mitja 
& Darko Štrajn (2012): Razvoj državljanske vzgoje v 
Republiki Sloveniji: konceptualni okvir in razvoj kuriku-
lumov (državljanska vzgoja in etika, družba) [The Devel-
opment of Civic Education in the Republic of Slovenia: 
Conceptual Framework and Curriculum Development 
(Ethics and Society)]. Ljubljana, Pedagoški inštitut. 
Tajfel, Henri & John C. Turner (1986): The Social 
Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In: Worchel, 
Stephen & William G. Austin (eds.): Psychology of Inter-
group Relations. Chicago, Nelson Hall, 7–24.
The Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 
33/2016 (2016): Zakon o varstvu pred diskrimi-
nacijo (ZVarD) [Protection from Discrimination Act]. 
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebi-
na/2016-01-1427/zakon-o-varstvu-pred-diskriminacijo-
zvard (last access: 2023-08-10).
Thompson, Sue (2017): Ageing and Ageism. In: 
Thompson, Niel & Gerry R. Cox (eds.): Handbook of 
the Sociology of Death, Grief, and Bereavement: A 
Guide to Theory and Practice. New York, Routledge, 
210–223.
Tornstam, Lars (2006): The Complexity of Ageism: 
A Proposed Typology. International Journal of Ageing & 
Later Life, 1, 1, 43–68.
United Nations (2022): World Population Prospects 
2022, Online Edition. https://population.un.org/wpp/ 
(last access: 2024-01-05).
Vauclair, Christin-Melanie, Lima, Maria & Sibila 
Marques (2014): The EURAGE Group: Examining Age-
ing and Ageism in Context Through the European Social 
Survey. Transcultural, 6, 1, 55–67.
World Health Organization (2021): Global Report 
on Ageism. World Health Organization. https://www.
who.int/publications/i/item/9789240016866 (last ac-
cess: 2023-08-10).
Wyman, Mary F., Shiovitz-Ezra, Sharon & Jürgen 
Bengel (2018): Ageism in the Health Care System: 
Providers, Patients, and Systems. In: Ayalon, Liat & Ce-
mens Tesch-Römer (eds.): International Perspectives on 
Aging. New York, Springer Cham, 193–212.