Why It’s Time To Put Them To Rest

You see them all the time–generational labels assigned to age cohorts suggesting shared beliefs, behaviors and values. They are used in marketing and advertising strategies as well as in articles and research. If they are so prominent, then why are they a problem? Because the assigned characteristics are trivial, misleading and often lead to bigotry.

Age-bashing and generational finger-pointing negatively influence societal attitudes from healthcare to employment. And it goes both ways. It’s ugly, to be sure. But it’s also driven, in part, by the fact that current culture has been duped into thinking these labels have any real meaning.

They don’t.

This irrelevance is why Dr. Philip N. Cohen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, is keen on eradicating them. Last year, Dr. Cohen sent an open letter to Pew Research Center, imploring them to refrain from using generational labels that do not align with scientific principles of social research.

Pew Research Center conducts empirical research on various topics to enrich public dialogue and support sound decision-making. Their experts “combine the observational and storytelling skills of journalists with the analytical rigor of social scientists.”

But Dr. Cohen and the 150 demographers and social scientists who co-signed the letter disagree–at least on how Pew analyses and reports on age. Not only does Pew’s use of generational labels (most commonly Boomer, Gen X, Millennial and Gen Z) mistakenly infer scientific similarity in preferences and behaviors, but continued use perpetuates an already faulty social science notion.

Age Cohorts: Pseudoscience at Best

“We appreciate Pew’s surveys and other research, and urge them to bring this work into better alignment with scientific principles of social research,” Dr. Cohen wrote.

And then he argued six reasons why.

1. The cohorts are determined by birth year and not related to reproductive generations. For example, a parent and child could easily fit in the Silent or Boomer cohort. This is due to the varying length of grouping birth years–anywhere between 16 and 19 years.
2. The arbitrary designation has no scientific basis. Dr. Cohen cites Pew research showing that most Americans cannot identify the generations to which Pew claims they belong.
3. Generational naming suggests “a distinct character, and then imposing qualities on diverse populations without basis, resulting in the current widespread problem of crude stereotyping.” It’s pseudoscience, he writes.
4. Generational labels undermine important research. “Cohort analysis and the life course perspective are important tools for studying and communicating social science. But the vast majority of popular survey research and reporting on the generations uses cross-sectional data, and is not cohort research at all.”
5. Generational labels are widely misunderstood to be official categories and identities. The more they are used, the more pervasive the problem becomes.
6. Generational labels have become a parody and should end. A public course correction from Pew would send an important signal and help steer research and popular discourse around demographic and social issues toward greater understanding. It would also greatly enhance Pew’s reputation in the research community.

Cohen followed his open letter with an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled, Generation labels mean nothing. It’s time to retire them.

“Aren’t these tags just a bit of fun for writers? A convenient hook for readers and a way of communicating generational change, which no one would deny is a real phenomenon? We in academic social science study and teach social change, but we don’t study and teach these categories because they simply aren’t real. And in social science, reality still matters.”

Pew’s Response

On 12 July 2021, following Dr. Cohen’s constructive criticism, Kim Parker, director of social trends at Pew, published a response.

“Generations are one of many analytical lenses researchers use to understand societal change and differences across groups.”

The response went on to admit limitations to generational labels and that labeling could lead to age stereotyping. But what it didn’t say was that Pew would stop using them. Instead, they offered to enter a discussion around the best approach to generational research.

Pew responded to my request for an update on their position by directing me back to the July 2021 response. While the discussion seems to be a lengthy one, it is worth noting that a search on the Pew website shows the last publication using any reference to a generational label was July 2021.

Shared Values Speak Volumes

“Generational labeling is complete nonsense,” said David Allison, consumer behavior expert and founder of Valuegraphics. “We’ve surveyed about 750,000 people in 152 languages and 180 countries. We’ve tracked and measured core human values, the operating system that humans use to navigate their lives. And what we’ve found is that age-based cohorts are entirely dissimilar.”

Allison says cohort similarity is only about 10.5%, meaning that almost 90% within any age cohort were dissimilar. He points out that the lack of likeness goes across any demographic, including age, race, education or income.

This is not the first time generational measures have proven no more predictive than the general public. In his New Yorker article published last October, Louis Menand underscored how “most young people in the sixties did not practice free love, take drugs or protest the war in Vietnam,” as has been popularly portrayed. He cites a 1967 poll reporting that 63% of the respondents thought couples should wait to have sex until marriage. The percentage was the same whether the answer came from the younger people or the general public.

Menard sets the tone for generational references (and even reporting out by decades) with tongue-in-cheek humor. “People talk as though there were a unique DNA for Gen X—what in the nineteenth century was called a generational entelechy—even though the difference between a baby boomer and a Gen X-er is about as meaningful as the difference between a Leo and a Virgo.”

If data doesn’t convince you, Allison argues that common sense should.

“There are about 72 million millennials in the U.S. alone. How can anyone argue that 72 million people are similar in any appreciable way other than the number of times they’ve blown out candles on a cake?”

While social science research is one thing, marketing and advertising are another. In all cases, generational labels have over-simplified the complex nature of human behavior.

Allison founded the Valuegraphics project and built an expansive database to help organizations create better customer engagement and less division. Using the massive database, he demonstrates that the most effective way to analyze what we know about people is through what they value, not demographic markers–especially not made-up ones.

“We are not definable as humans based on demographic characteristics. They only tell us what people are, not who they are on the inside, where it counts. The only way to understand who people are is to know what they value. Because our values determine how we live, how we walk through the daily rituals of our life, what we pay attention to, what we choose, how we feel.”

On the Valuegraphics Youtube channel, Allison points to the global solidarity behind Ukraine as an example. “People of all political persuasions are putting aside their differences and uniting around the need to address this problem because our shared human values are threatened.”

When Business Success Matters

Since cultural eradication of generational labeling may take a while (some people like to self-identify with their respective pseudo-label), the demand for credible research should encourage a more consistent approach for reporting on age. As for marketing and advertising, the values-based approach seems spot-on. That’s precisely what TikTok has been doing, which may explain why it has become the most popular web domain and social media platform.

A report published last year showed “the majority of the TikTok community fell into a combination of four core mindsets which differentiated the platform to competitors: Entertain me, Participate, Uplift and Discover. Each mindset category brought a different state of mind and therefore big implications for the marketing industry.”

TikTok has openly suggested that marketers’ generational obsession can stand in the way of business success. “This research shows that defining a target based around mindset rather than a demographic, and understanding what the user is truly looking for, will lead to a deeper understanding and more meaningful interaction with customers.”

Deloitte also focuses on individual attributes instead of generational cohorts. “This personalization enables workers to maximize their contribution at work, derive enhanced meaning in their careers and, ultimately, better align themselves with the purpose of the organization—one which not only understands what they can contribute, but also how they uniquely can do so,” the company wrote on their website.

Generational labels are out of alignment with social science research, perpetuate age bias and stereotypes across all ages and (if money is the necessary motivator) stand in the way of business success.

Why not just put them to rest once and for all?