原來(lái)有的話(huà)年輕人、中年人說(shuō)說(shuō)無(wú)妨，但老年人就不能講

It turns out that a young Max and a middle-aged Max can get away with saying things that an old Max cannot.

原來(lái)有的話(huà)年輕人、中年人說(shuō)說(shuō)無(wú)妨，但老年人就不能講。

At least that is the conclusion of a new study by Princeton researchers aimed at measuring age discrimination, one of the toughest forms of workplace bias to prove.

至少這是普林斯頓大學(xué)(Princeton)的研究人員開(kāi)展的新研究所得出的結(jié)論。研究的目的是衡量年齡歧視，這是工作場(chǎng)合歧視中最難以證明的一種形式。

The subjects of the experiment — 137 Princeton undergraduates — were shown a video of a man who would be their partner in a trivia contest. His name was Max, he was white, neither handsome nor ugly, wore a checked shirt and said he was from Hamilton, N.J.

這次研究的對(duì)象是普林斯頓大學(xué)的137名本科生。研究人員向受試者播放了一名男子的視頻，該名男子名叫麥克斯(Max)，會(huì)成為參與者在一次知識(shí)競(jìng)賽里的搭檔。麥克斯是白人，既不帥也不丑，身著格子襯衫，自稱(chēng)來(lái)自新澤西州漢密爾頓。

What the students did not know was that there were actually three different versions of Max, being played by different actors, 25, 45 and 75 years old.

接受測(cè)試的學(xué)生不知道的是，實(shí)際上有三個(gè)不同版本的麥克斯，由三名不同的演員扮演，年齡分別是25歲、45歲、75歲。

Each Max adhered to the same script with one exception. When describing himself, half of the time the Max character said he was the kind of person to share his wealth with relatives (the compliant Max); and the other half of the time, Max said he felt no obligation to share (the assertive Max).

每個(gè)麥克斯都照著同樣的腳本表演，只有一處例外。在描述自己時(shí)，有一半的時(shí)間麥克斯會(huì)說(shuō)，自己是那種愿意與親戚分享錢(qián)財(cái)?shù)娜?寬厚的麥克斯);另一半時(shí)間，麥克斯說(shuō)，他覺(jué)得沒(méi)有義務(wù)分享錢(qián)財(cái)(自負(fù)的麥克斯)。

The students were then asked their opinion of Max. For those who saw the 25- or 45-year-old Max, it made no difference whether he was compliant or assertive. But students who saw the 75-year-old actor gave the assertive Max a high negative rating.

之后，研究人員詢(xún)問(wèn)學(xué)生們對(duì)麥克斯有怎樣的評(píng)價(jià)。對(duì)于那些見(jiàn)到25歲或45歲的麥克斯的學(xué)生們，他是寬厚還是自負(fù)沒(méi)有產(chǎn)生什么影響。但見(jiàn)到75歲的演員的學(xué)生們，會(huì)對(duì)自負(fù)的麥克斯給予十分負(fù)面的評(píng)價(jià)。

The results, soon to be published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, illustrate the subtle bias older men and women may face in the work force.

這顯示出較為年長(zhǎng)的人在工作中可能會(huì)受到微妙的區(qū)別對(duì)待。研究結(jié)果即將發(fā)表在《個(gè)性與社會(huì)心理學(xué)通報(bào)》(Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin)上。

“If you want to be an aging gray panther, and speak your mind to your manager, that’s fine,” said Susan Fiske, a Princeton professor and a co-author of the study with Michael North, who recently completed his Ph.D. “But expect consequences.”

“你要是想成為一個(gè)年邁又脾氣暴躁的人，敢對(duì)經(jīng)理直話(huà)直說(shuō)，那也行，”普林斯頓大學(xué)教授蘇珊·菲斯克(Susan Fiske)說(shuō)。“可是得做好承擔(dān)后果的心理準(zhǔn)備。”這項(xiàng)研究是她和邁克爾·諾斯(Michael North)共同開(kāi)展的，后者最近剛獲得了博士學(xué)位。

There is little doubt that such discrimination exists. When an older man or woman is laid off, it typically takes two to six months longer to find a new job than it takes younger workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the new job is likely to pay considerably less.

很少有人會(huì)懷疑這種歧視是否存在。美國(guó)勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)數(shù)據(jù)顯示，年長(zhǎng)者被解雇后，通常需要比年輕就業(yè)者多花2至6個(gè)月才能找到新工作。而且新工作的薪水可能會(huì)顯著降低。

During the recent recession, many unemployed older people told a similar story. They sent in their résumé and got called for an interview, but when they walked in, potential employers saw their white hair and that was it.

在最近的經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退中，許多年齡較長(zhǎng)的失業(yè)者講述了類(lèi)似的故事。他們發(fā)出簡(jiǎn)歷，被叫來(lái)參加面試，可是他們一走進(jìn)辦公室，意向雇主看到他們頭上的白發(fā)，于是就沒(méi)有下文了。

Feeling discrimination is one thing, proving it another. “It’s simply harder to establish,” said David Neumark, a professor at the University of California, Irvine.

但感覺(jué)受到歧視是一回事，證明卻是另一回事。加州大學(xué)歐文分校(University of California, Irvine)教授戴維·紐馬克(David Neumark)說(shuō)，“想要證實(shí)，的確很難。”

Winning an age discrimination lawsuit has become much harder since a 2009 United States Supreme Court case, Gross vs. FBL Financial Services. Before that, the employee had to show that age was a factor contributing to the layoff. Now, the employee has to show that age was the determining factor leading to the layoff, a much tougher standard.

自從2009年美國(guó)最高法院(Supreme Court)對(duì)“格羅斯訴FBL金融服務(wù)公司案”(Gross vs. FBL Financial Services)做出裁決之后，贏得年齡歧視案件的難度就極大地增加了。這項(xiàng)裁決做出之前，員工需要證明年齡是促成解雇的一個(gè)因素。現(xiàn)在，員工必須證明年齡是導(dǎo)致解雇的決定性因素。后者的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)苛刻得多。

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have told us that they will not take age cases anymore because of the Gross decision,” says Laurie McCann, an attorney with AARP.

美國(guó)退休人員協(xié)會(huì)(AARP)的一名律師勞麗·麥卡恩(Laurie McCann)表示，“原告人的律師告訴我們，由于格羅斯案的裁決，他們不再接年齡歧視案件了。”

The older generation, those born from 1946 to 1964, accounts for the fastest-growing segment of workplace discrimination claims. In 2012, 22,875 people filed age claims with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, compared with 15,875 in 1997. That represents 23 percent of all the individuals filing claims in 2012 versus 19 percent in 1997. At the same time, the percentage of people filing race claims has decreased to 33 percent of all claimants, from 36 percent; its held steady at 30 percent for sex discrimination.

出生于1946年至1964年間的年齡較長(zhǎng)的一代人，已經(jīng)成了職場(chǎng)歧視投訴中增長(zhǎng)最快的群體。在2012年，有22875人向聯(lián)邦公平就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)委員會(huì)(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)提起了年齡歧視投訴，而1997年有15875人。在投訴者總?cè)藬?shù)中所占的比例，2012年為23%，1997年為19%。與此同時(shí)，提交種族歧視投訴的個(gè)人占總投訴人數(shù)的比例從36%減少到了33%。提交性別歧視投訴的人數(shù)占總投訴人數(shù)的比例則持平，維持在30%。

With age discrimination claims on the rise, a growing number of academics are undertaking research projects aimed at better identifying it.

隨著年齡歧視投訴的增多，學(xué)術(shù)界也有越來(lái)越多的人為了更好地確認(rèn)年齡歧視而啟動(dòng)了研究項(xiàng)目。

In 2010, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation began a “Working Longer” project, which has awarded 66 research grants focused on age discrimination, including the Princeton study. Kathleen E. Christensen, the program director, says it was spurred by a graying population that will be healthier and stay in the work force longer.

2010年，艾爾弗雷德·P·斯隆基金會(huì)(Alfred P. Sloan Foundation)啟動(dòng)了“工作更久”(Working Longer)項(xiàng)目，發(fā)放了66份關(guān)注于年齡歧視的研究撥款，其中就包括普林斯頓大學(xué)的這項(xiàng)研究。項(xiàng)目總監(jiān)凱瑟琳·E·克里斯滕森(Kathleen E. Christensen)說(shuō)，設(shè)立這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的原因是，正在老齡化的人口更加健康，也能繼續(xù)工作更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間。

“Anything that involves baby boomers assumes greater significance just because of the sheer numbers,” she said.

她說(shuō)，“任何問(wèn)題只要涉及嬰兒潮一代，單純因?yàn)樗麄償?shù)量巨大，就使其具有極大的重要性。”

One grantee, Sarah von Schrader, a Cornell research associate, says that more than 60 percent of equal employment complaints are related to job dismissals; only 10 percent involve hiring bias, which, she says, is the most difficult of age cases to document.

得到資助的康奈爾大學(xué)(Cornell)研究員莎拉·馮·施拉德(Sarah von Schrader)表示，超過(guò)60%的就業(yè)平等投訴與解雇有關(guān)，只有10%涉及雇傭歧視。她說(shuō)，后者在年齡歧視投訴中是最難獲得書(shū)面證據(jù)的。

Joanna Lahey, an associate professor at Texas A&M, has created an innovative — though limited — audit model for calculating age bias. In a 2005 study, she sent out 4,000 résumés to businesses in Boston and St. Petersburg, Fla., for fictional job applicants from 35 to 62. The applications were for entry-level fields like data processing and fast-food service — the sort of jobs requiring little work experience. The applicants were all women, since employers might plausibly assume an older woman “has been at home taking care of the family.”

德州農(nóng)工大學(xué)(Texas A&M)副教授喬安娜·拉希(Joanna Lahey)建立了一個(gè)富有創(chuàng)新性，不過(guò)具有局限性的審計(jì)模型來(lái)計(jì)算年齡歧視。在2005年的一項(xiàng)研究中，她向波士頓和佛羅里達(dá)州圣彼得斯堡的企業(yè)發(fā)出了4000份簡(jiǎn)歷，這些虛構(gòu)的應(yīng)聘者年齡在35歲至62歲之間，申請(qǐng)的職位都是入門(mén)級(jí)工作，如數(shù)據(jù)處理和快餐服務(wù)的崗位。這些職位幾乎不需要工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)。所有的申請(qǐng)人都是女性，因?yàn)楣椭骺赡軙?huì)合理地推斷，較為年長(zhǎng)的女性“一直在家照顧家人”。

Dr. Lahey found that a younger applicant was 40 percent more likely to be called for an interview than someone 50 or older. In Boston, the younger person needed to send 19 résumés to get an interview; for older workers it took 27 résumés; in Florida, the comparable numbers were 16 versus 23 résumés .

拉希發(fā)現(xiàn)，較年輕的申請(qǐng)人接到參加面試的電話(huà)邀請(qǐng)的概率，比50歲及以上的申請(qǐng)人高40%。在波士頓，年輕申請(qǐng)人發(fā)出19份簡(jiǎn)歷就會(huì)得到一次面試機(jī)會(huì)，而年長(zhǎng)的工作者則需要發(fā)出27份簡(jiǎn)歷才能得到一次面試機(jī)會(huì)。在佛羅里達(dá)州，這兩個(gè)數(shù)字分別是16份和23份。