AI AND AGEISM: DIGITAL EXCLUSION AND WORKPLACE CHALLENGES FOR OLDER INDIVIDUALS

Öz

In recent years, scholarly discourse has increasingly demonstrated how algorithmic systems can produce biased and discriminatory outcomes, particularly concerning gender and race. However, discussions on fairness and bias in AI—critical to the broader debate on AI for social good—have largely overlooked the dimension of age and its implications for older individuals. As digitalization and AI technologies continue to reshape societal structures, aging populations remain underrepresented in both research and policy frameworks, potentially deepening existing digital inequalities. This study is a narrative review that comprehensively examines the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on older individuals within the framework of ageism and digital inequalities. Drawing on a theoretical framework that links modernization, cumulative inequality, digital exclusion, and AI-specific mechanisms of discrimination, the study distinguishes AI ageism from broader forms of digital ageism. While addressing the historical development and contemporary manifestations of ageism, it examines the challenges older individuals may face in digital environments. In particular, algorithmic biases and the underrepresentation of older individuals in AI systems may contribute to their exclusion from social and economic processes. The ways in which AI technologies may reinforce age discrimination in both the labor market and digital environments are discussed, together with the social, psychological, and economic dimensions of these processes. In addition, the difficulties older individuals may encounter in adopting AI technologies and the potential exclusionary mechanisms associated with these processes are examined. Ultimately, the study highlights the importance of developing inclusive algorithms, ensuring age diversity in datasets, and implementing age-friendly policies in order to reduce the risk of AI-driven ageism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ageism
• artificial intelligence
• labor market
• digital ageism
• digital inequality.

YAPAY ZEKÂ VE YAŞ AYRIMCILIĞI: YAŞLI BİREYLER İÇİN DİJİTAL DIŞLANMA VE ÇALIŞMA YAŞAMINDAKİ ZORLUKLAR

Öz

Son yıllarda akademik literatürde, algoritmik sistemlerin özellikle cinsiyet ve ırk bağlamında önyargılı ve ayrımcı sonuçlar üretebildiği giderek daha fazla ortaya konulmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, yapay zekâda adalet ve önyargı tartışmaları—yapay zekânın toplumsal yarar için kullanılması konusundaki daha geniş tartışmaların önemli bir parçası olmasına rağmen—yaş boyutunu ve bunun yaşlı bireyler üzerindeki etkilerini büyük ölçüde göz ardı etmiştir. Dijitalleşme ve yapay zekâ teknolojileri toplumsal yapıları yeniden şekillendirmeye devam ederken, yaşlanan nüfuslar hem araştırma hem de politika çerçevelerinde yeterince temsil edilmemekte ve bu durum mevcut dijital eşitsizlikleri potansiyel olarak derinleştirebilmektedir. Bu çalışma, yapay zekânın (YZ) yaşlı bireyler üzerindeki etkilerini yaş ayrımcılığı ve dijital eşitsizlikler çerçevesinde kapsamlı bir biçimde inceleyen anlatısal bir derleme niteliğindedir. Modernleşme, birikimli eşitsizlik, dijital dışlanma ve yapay zekâya özgü ayrımcılık mekanizmalarını birbiriyle ilişkilendiren kuramsal bir çerçeveden hareket eden çalışma, yapay zekâ kaynaklı yaş ayrımcılığını daha genel dijital yaş ayrımcılığı biçimlerinden ayırmaktadır. Yaş ayrımcılığının tarihsel gelişimi ve günümüzdeki görünümleri ele alınırken, yaşlı bireylerin dijital ortamlarda karşılaşabilecekleri güçlükler incelenmektedir. Özellikle algoritmik önyargılar ve yaşlı bireylerin YZ sistemlerinde yeterince temsil edilmemesi, onların toplumsal ve ekonomik süreçlerden dışlanmasına katkıda bulunabilmektedir. YZ teknolojilerinin hem işgücü piyasasında hem de dijital ortamlarda yaş ayrımcılığını nasıl pekiştirebileceği tartışılmakta; bu süreçlerin sosyal, psikolojik ve ekonomik boyutları da değerlendirilmektedir. Ayrıca, yaşlı bireylerin YZ teknolojilerini benimseme sürecinde karşılaşabilecekleri güçlükler ve bu süreçlerle ilişkili potansiyel dışlayıcı mekanizmalar ele alınmaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, YZ kaynaklı yaş ayrımcılığı riskinin azaltılabilmesi için kapsayıcı algoritmaların geliştirilmesinin, veri setlerinde yaş çeşitliliğinin sağlanmasının ve yaş dostu politikaların uygulanmasının önemine dikkat çekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yaş ayrımcılığı
• yapay zekâ
• işgücü piyasası
• dijital yaş ayrımcılığı
• dijital eşitsizlik.

Kaynakça

1. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against Blacks. ProPublica. ProPublica
2. Aosved, A. C., Long, P. J., & Voller, E. K. (2009). Measuring sexism, racism, sexual prejudice, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance: The Intolerant Schema Measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(10), 2321–2354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00528.x
3. Aranda Rubio, Y., Baztán Cortés, J. J., & Canillas Del Rey, F. (2024). Is artificial intelligence ageist? European Geriatric Medicine, 15(6), 1957–1960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-024-01070-2
4. Asiamah, N., Sarpong, E., Baidoo, U. Y., Eku, E., Aidoo, I., Doamekpor, E., Khan, H. T. A., Danquah, E., Yarfi, C., Baffoe, R. S., & Manu, C. A. (2024). Discrimination of older peers is associated with workplace age discrimination: Moderation by occupational health literacy. BMC Psychology, 12, Article 662. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02163-0
5. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
6. Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., & Shadbolt, N. (2018). “It’s reducing a human being to a percentage”: Perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173951
7. Butler, R. N. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9(4, Part 1), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/9.4_Part_1.243
8. Butrica, B. A., & Mudrazija, S. (2022). Skills-based hiring and older workers. Urban Institute.

9. Camilleri, A., Geoghegan, R., Meade, R., Osorio, S., & Zou, Q. (2019). Bias in machine learning: How facial recognition models show signs of racism, sexism and ageism. Towards Data Science.
10. Chiu, W. C. K., Chan, A. W., Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2001). Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison. Human Relations, 54(5), 629–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701545004
11. Chu, C. H., Donato-Woodger, S., Khan, S. S., Nyrup, R., Leslie, K., Lyn, A., Shi, T., Bianchi, A., Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, S., & Grenier, A. (2023). Age-related bias and artificial intelligence: A scoping review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 510. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01999-y
12. Chu, C. H., Nyrup, R., Leslie, K., Shi, J., Bianchi, A., Lyn, A., McNicholl, M., Khan, S., Rahimi, S. A., & Grenier, A. (2022). Digital ageism: Challenges and opportunities in artificial intelligence for older adults. The Gerontologist, 62(7), 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab167
13. Cowgill, D. O., & Holmes, L. D. (1972). Aging and modernization. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
14. Crawford, K., & Paglen, T. (2021). Excavating AI: The politics of images in machine learning training sets. AI & Society, 36(4), 1105–1116.
15. Criado, N., & Such, J. M. (2019). Digital discrimination. In K. Yeung & M. Lodge (Eds.), Algorithmic regulation (pp. 82–97). Oxford University Press.
16. Çelik, S., & Avşar, E. (2024). Dijital dünyada yaşlı ayrımcılığı. In G. Kaptan (Ed.), Geleneksel yaşlılık/dijital gençlik (pp. 72–75). Türkiye Klinikleri.
17. Datta, A., Tschantz, M. C., & Datta, A. (2015). Automated experiments on ad privacy settings. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2015(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2015-0007
18. Díaz, M., Johnson, I., Lazar, A., Piper, A. M., & Gergle, D. (2019). Addressing age-related bias in sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 6146–6150). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2019/852
19. Ersözlü, M. (2024). Dijital eşitsizlik ve yaş ayrımcılığı bağlamında yapay zekâ: Yaş dostu yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin imkanları. In S. Ramazanova & B. Güneş (Eds.), Teori ve uygulamada sosyal bilimler 4 (pp. 86–103). Duvar Yayınları.
20. Fernández-Ardèvol, M., Rosales, A., Loos, E., Peine, A., Beneito-Montagut, R., Blanche, D., Fischer, B., Katz, S., & Östlund, B. (2019). Methodological strategies to understand smartphone practices for social connectedness in later life. In J. Zhou & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human aspects of IT for the aged population: Social media, games and assistive environments (pp. 46–64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22015-0_4
21. Ferraro, K. F., & Shippee, T. P. (2009). Aging and cumulative inequality: How does inequality get under the skin? The Gerontologist, 49(3), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp034
22. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
23. Ivan, L., Loos, E., & Tudorie, G. (2020). Mitigating visual ageism in digital media: Designing for dynamic diversity to enhance communication rights for senior citizens. Societies, 10(4), Article 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10040076
24. Iversen, T. N., Larsen, L., & Solem, P. E. (2009). A conceptual analysis of ageism. Nordic Psychology, 61(3), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.61.3.4
25. Katz, S., & Marshall, B. L. (2018). Tracked and fit: FitBits, brain games, and the quantified aging body. Journal of Aging Studies, 45, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2018.01.009
26. Kim, E., Bryant, D. A., Srikanth, D., & Howard, A. M. (2021). Age bias in emotion detection: An analysis of facial emotion recognition performance on young, middle-aged, and older adults. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 638–644). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462609
27. Knowles, B., Hanson, V. L., Rogers, Y., Piper, A. M., Waycott, J., Davies, N., Ambe, A. H., Brewer, R. N., Chattopadhyay, D., Dee, M., Frohlich, D., Gutierrez-Lopez, M., Jelen, B., Lazar, A., Nielek, R., Pena, B. B., Roper, A., Schlager, M., Schulte, B., & Yuan, I. Y. (2021). The harm in conflating aging with accessibility. Communications of the ACM, 64(7), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3431280
28. Kotler, S. (2015, February 14). Is Silicon Valley ageist or just smart? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotler/2015/02/14/is-silicon-valley-ageist-or-just-smart/
29. Köttl, H., Gallistl, V., Rohner, R., & Ayalon, L. (2021). “But at the age of 85? Forget it!”: Internalized ageism, a barrier to technology use. Journal of Aging Studies, 59, Article 100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2021.100971
30. Loretto, W., & White, P. (2006). Population ageing and older workers: Employers’ perceptions, attitudes and policies. Population, Space and Place, 12(5), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.421
31. Malinen, S., & Johnston, L. (2013). Workplace ageism: Discovering hidden bias. Experimental Aging Research, 39(4), 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2013.808111
32. Mannheim, I. (2023). Ageism in the use and design of digital technology [Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University]. Tilburg University Research Portal.
33. Marchiondo, L. A., Gonzales, E., & Ran, S. (2016). Development and validation of the Workplace Age Discrimination Scale. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(4), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9425-6
34. Meade, R. et al. (2021). Bias in machine learning: How facial recognition models show signs of racism, sexism and ageism. Towards Data Science.
35. Neves, B. B., Amaro, F., & Fonseca, J. R. S. (2013). Coming of (old) age in the digital age: ICT usage and non-usage among older adults. Sociological Research Online, 18(2), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2998
36. OECD. (2025). OECD employment outlook 2025: Can we get through the demographic crunch? OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/194a947b-en
37. Özmete, E., Pak, M., & Duru, S. (2021). Workplace age discrimination and affecting factors in Turkey: A validation study. Experimental Aging Research, 47(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2021.1909967
38. Palmore, E. (2000). Guest editorial: Ageism in gerontological language. The Gerontologist, 40(6), 645. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.6.645
39. Palmore, E. (2001). The ageism survey: First findings. The Gerontologist, 41(5), 572–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/41.5.572
40. Palmore, E. B., Branch, L. G., & Harris, D. K. (Eds.). (2005). Encyclopedia of ageism. Haworth Pastoral Press.
41. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736061
42. Pedersen, I., Reid, S., & Aspevig, K. (2018). Developing social robots for aging populations: A literature review of recent academic sources. Sociology Compass, 12(6), Article e12585. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12585
43. Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., van der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S., van Hoof, J., Vrijhoef, H. J. M., & Wouters, E. J. M. (2016). Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology, 62(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949
44. Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 158–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318617
45. Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 469–481). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372828
46. Rodgers, W., Murray, J. M., Stefanidis, A., Degbey, W. Y., & Tarba, S. Y. (2023). An artificial intelligence algorithmic approach to ethical decision-making in human resource management processes. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), Article 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100925
47. Rosales, A., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2020). Ageism in the era of digital platforms. Convergence, 26(5–6), 1074–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520930905
48. Rosales, A., Svensson, J., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2023). Digital ageism in data societies. In A. Rosales, M. Fernández-Ardèvol, & J. Svensson (Eds.), Digital ageism: How it operates and approaches to tackling it (pp. 1–17). Routledge.
49. Rutkin, A. (2016). Digital discrimination. New Scientist, 231(3084), 18–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(16)31364-1
50. Schlesinger, A., O’Hara, K. P., & Taylor, A. S. (2018). Let’s talk about race: Identity, chatbots, and AI. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173889
51. Schrouff, J., Harris, N., Koyejo, S., Alabdulmohsin, I. M., Schnider, E., Opsahl-Ong, K., Brown, A., Roy, S., Mincu, D., Chen, C., Dieng, A., Liu, Y., Natarajan, V., Karthikesalingam, A., Heller, K. A., Chiappa, S., & D’Amour, A. (2022). Diagnosing failures of fairness transfer across distribution shift in real-world medical settings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 19304–19318. https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-1403
52. Sevilla, C. (2019). Everyday ageism in the tech industry. CWJobs. https://www.cwjobs.co.uk/advice/ageism-in-tech
53. Stypinska, J. (2023). AI ageism: A critical roadmap for studying age discrimination and exclusion in digitalized societies. AI & Society, 38(2), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01553-5
54. Stypinska, J., & Turek, K. (2017). Hard and soft age discrimination: The dual nature of workplace discrimination. European Journal of Ageing, 14(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-016-0407-y
55. Tuan, D. A., & Thanh, D. T. (2024). Harnessing AI and IoT for the future of healthcare: A comprehensive review on chronic disease management and pandemic response [Preprint]. Preprints.org. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.2451.v1
56. United Nations. (2024). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population prospects 2024: Summary of results (UN DESA/POP/2024/TR/NO. 9). United Nations.
57. Virick, M. (2011). Underemployment and older workers. In D. C. Maynard & D. C. Feldman (Eds.), Underemployment: Psychological, economic, and social challenges (pp. 81–103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9413-4_5
58. Wachter-Boettcher, S. (2017). Technically wrong: Sexist apps, biased algorithms, and other threats of toxic tech. W. W. Norton & Company.
59. World Health Organization. (2022). Ageism in artificial intelligence for health: WHO policy brief. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240040793
60. World Health Organization. (2021). Global report on ageism. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240016866
61. Yoti. (2020). Yoti Age Scan: Public version [White paper]. https://www.yoti.com/wp-content/uploads/White-Paper-October-2020.pdf