Why don’t Generation Y just grow up? An examination of why Generation Y are not taking up the markers of adulthood when popular media and life stage theory suggests they should.
Introduction
Generation Y are considered the age cohort born from the early to mid eighties to the mid nineties, with many Generation Y’s being at an age life stage theories generally refer to as adult. Unlike the generations which have passed before them, Generation Y appears to be in little hurry to grow up, with the traditional markers of adulthood yet to be attained with many still studying, still single, and not having stable living arrangements. However, while the popular media levels criticism at Generation Y for their behaviour, they do not often make reference to why Generation Y behaves as they do in relation to developmental theory.
Why don’t Generation Y just grow up?
Despite much of Generation Y being of an age where they are, according to traditional developmental models either, at the late edge of adolescence, or entering early adulthood (Erikson 1950), a significant amount of their described behaviours can still be aligned to those associated with adolescence (Gibb 2009). These parallels have not gone unnoticed by the media, with Generation Y being called cliquey (Seabrook 2007), optimistic (Philip 2007), self absorbed (Salt 2009) on the basis of their observable behaviours.
Such behaviours are worthy of further examination as when the definition of generation is considered to include trends and events that shape a particular birth cohort (Howe and Strauss 1990), it could be suggested that the cause lies within the current socio-cultural context, and how it is impacting Generation Y as an age group.
In eschewing the traditional markers of adulthood; marriage, career, (Hayford and Furstenberg 2008; Mary 2006; Arnett 2000; Galston 2007), Generation Y are creating a different path to adulthood as compared to previous generations and do not have the luxury of looking at generations past for guidance because of the rapid pace of change (Mary 2006). They must forge ahead to make their own future, in the current socio-historical climate, which is where the developmental literature suggests the answer lies.
Maybe Generation Y can’t grow up
To suggest that Generation Y “grow up” through criticism or command won’t yield the desired results because their behaviour is reflective of the social climate, which according to Balters et al (in Pogson 1995, Riegel (in Tennant and Pogson 1995), Mary 2006, Marohn (1999), and Clark and Caffarella (1999), is a key determinant of developmental status. Instead, it may be more useful to examine the societal pressures preventing generation Y from attaining the traditional markers of adulthood.
There is much literature describing Generation Y’s work habits, citing them as collaborative, needing to be recognised, driven, requiring positive reinforcement (Raines 2002), there are also those that highlight Generation Y’s immaturity and lack of stick-to-itiveness when working situations don’t eventuate as desired (Salt 2009, Long 2006, Donnison 2008). These criticisms raise the question around why Generation Y are behaving in what is colloquially considered to be an immature manner.
When Blos and Erikson popularised the need for a reexamination of adolescence is 1962 and 1968 respectively, the world had slowly started to change. Women’s liberation movements were commencing in Western nations, there was an increasing groundswell against the African American directed racism in America, the Vietnam War had commenced, and the White Australia policy was nearing an end. The future would see a reduction in unskilled jobs in developed countries as manufacturing moved offshore, more women enter the workforce, the boom of the knowledge economy, and a positive shift in attitudes towards and availability of further study, all underpinned by an increasing rate of change. With these changes having occurred, and the economy evolving further, Generation Y live in times far different to their parents. As compared to less than 55% of Australian women participating in the workforce in 1978, it is now estimated that over 70% of women are in the workforce (Workforce Participation Trend 2007), and deindustrialisation has meant that men aged 25-34 now earn more, not less when in possession of a college degree (Galston 2007). Our working arrangements are increasingly blurred with technology assisting to blend the line between work and personal affairs (McCrindle 2003), a job is now considered to be an identity and way of life (Arnett 2000, Mary 2006).
Considering the factors above, further education is now considered a requirement for many Generation Y’s as it will allow them to attain one of the markers of adulthood, financial independence, in the future. This trend can be seen through the reduction of those aged 20-34 working full time (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, Galston 2007).
Unfortunately, in doing so, it denies them of other markers of adulthood (Hayford and Furstenberg 2008). Financial independence is difficult to attain while studying as full time work is mostly not an option, meaning that living arrangements are often either with parents or transitory in nature, meaning that their environment is not a stable one in many respects, and not suitable to be raising children. So while these markers of adulthood cannot be attained immediately after high school as was once the norm, it is not reasonable to expect Generation Y to act as adults immediately after leaving school while societal norms commonly deny them the markers of adulthood at this time.
Aside from moving the traditional markers of adulthood to be attained later in life, it also seems that society places less importance on them than they did in the mid twentieth century when Erikson popularised the life stage approach by extending it into adulthood. Further to this, on the basis that development is composed of a combination of age and experience (Erikson 1950, 1968; Marohn 1999; Clark and Caffarella 1999; Arnett 2000; Mary 2006; Brooks 2007; Hayford and Furstenberg 2008) and experience is influenced through greater society (Tennant and Pogson 1995; Mary 2006; Clark and Caffarella 1999), a society which reveres and rewards youthful behaviour, then it stands that Generation Y can see growing up as losing innocence and freedom, rather than gaining “escape” as was the case in the 1950’s (Arnett 2000, Mary 2006).
In a society that is increasingly focuses on the self (Grossman 2006, Mary 2006), it is becoming more difficult to define self interest associated with life stage and self interest associated with societal trend (Gibb 2009), and it could be suggested that Generation Y are having their behaviours reinforced through social modelling (Bandura 1977) in popular culture, and as such are not being given impetus to move beyond their current perspective.
A life stage between adolescence and adulthood as the answer?
When the life stage oriented literature discusses the above societal changes and pressures, it concludes that they have developmental implications for those youth passing through it (Blos 1962; Erikson 1968; Arnett 2000; Mary 2006), which in the current time, is Generation Y. In discussing the effects of such pressures, it is noted that those experiencing it do not describe themselves as either adolescents or adults (Arnett 2000; Mary 2006; Brooks 2007). They are not wholly identifying with either on the basis that markers of adulthood such as a career, marriage, leaving home, having children, and financial independence have not been attained and have been replaced by study, a series of menial non-career jobs, impermanent living arrangements, and experimentation.
Through their reliance on age as an indicator of likely experiences, it is developmental theories that are reliant on life stages and ages that have been the catalyst for the suggestion of an additional developmental phase.
Bernfeld is reported as the first to give recognition to prolonged adolescence in 1923, recognising that privileged males were displaying desires and behaviours beyond their physical adolescent development (in Marohn 1999). Blos’ prolonged adolescence (1954) suggests that youth are increasingly unable to make the choices required to express their beliefs and values, suggesting that adolescence is “a developmental phase which is intended to be left behind after it has accomplished its task” (p734), which according to Blos is to consolidate personality structure and achieve individuation from parents. While Blos’ work appears to problematise the extension of adolescence, Erikson’s 1968 release “Identity: Youth and Crisis” offers the suggestion of a psychosocial moratorium whereby “the sexually matured individual is more or less retarded in his psychosexual capacity for intimacy and the psychosocial readiness for parenthood” (p156), suggesting that despite physical readiness, role experimentation to locate a niche in society is still required before movement to the Early Adulthood phase.
In a departure from these earlier theorists movements to explain the phenomena of prolonged adolescence within their models, later theorists moved toward suggesting an additional stage to existing models or in the case of Levinson (in Hoyer and Roodin 2005), incorporate some of the behaviours into their model. The additional stages tend to use different developmental models as a basis, and propose a phase fitting between adolescence and adulthood.
Arnett’s Emerging Adulthood (2000) is defined “as a new conception of development for the period from the late teens through the twenties, with a focus on age 18-25” (2000, p469) and is based on Erikson’s framework, with particular attention to Erikson’s 1968 reference to the need to experiment. Arnett identifies Emerging Adulthood as a development phase through an explanation that the sociocultural changes the Western world is seeing have been gradually emerging, rising to prominence in the early 1990’s, and are set to continue into the future. Arnett sees Emerging Adulthood as defined by five main components concerning love and work summarised as; identity exploration through experimentation, instability through intensity, a greater self-focus through more personal freedom, transitory feelings regarding high levels of change, and hopefulness and optimism brought about by the novelty of relationships and obligations (2004).
Unlike Arnett, who clearly establishes his work as fitting within Erikson’s existing model, Mary (2006) discusses the increasing ambiguity of age related behaviour, problematising the permanence of age based models by highlighting that our perception of development and the models produced result from societal observations, highlighting that favourable economic, political, and social environments tend to bring about new concepts. In this respect, Mary’s work sits between more experiential models and life stage ones.
Mary’s Twenhood bears some similarity to Arnett’s in that a state of perpetual flux is identified as a central tenet. Mary explains this with reference to Van Gennep’s rites of transition, suggesting that separation has occurred but reaggregation is yet to happen, leaving a state of liminality, which aligns with the assertion that Generation Y are experiencing difficulty transitioning to adulthood (Huntley 2006, Salt 2009)
From this similarity however, Mary’s work is a clear departure from Arnett’s, suggesting that a quarterlife crisis takes place in Twenhood due to the lack of attainable adult markers. Unsure how to proceed, a state of communitas unites Twenhoods in their reluctance to follow a traditional life course, and instead form cliques and alternative subcultures, likened to the observation of Generation Y having friends as family (Seabrook 2007).
Additionally, citing that society worships youth, Mary proposes that young adults, rather than looking forward to markers of the adult world, are looking for enhanced reconstructions of the past, which acts as an explanation for the rise of so called “Kidults”.
Galston (in Brooks 2007) also speaks of the changes occurring between adolescence and adulthood based on an empirical study (Galston 2007) he conducted comparing the traditional markers of adulthood, marriage, children and career from 1970 to 2007, referring to a period in the twenties and sometimes extending to the early thirties as the Odyssey years, with reference to the exploration that takes place in this time akin to Erikson’s (1968) psychosocial moratorium. He also makes a similar observation to Mary (2006), suggesting that society has a preoccupation with youth, but comes to the conclusion that it has helped intergenerational communication due to a blurring of age associated behaviours.
Is the life stage approach losing relevance?
The life stage approach, upon which most of the observations above are based is not without critics, especially in more recent literature which criticises the relevance of the life stage approach in current times and offers an alternate approach through emphasising the role of both collective and individual experience in development. It questions the prominence of age in stage based theories which are difficult to empirically confirm (Hoyer and Roodin 1995), with Tennant and Pogson going so far as to suggest “with two of the three major influences on development relatively unrelated to age, the attempt to identify universal-related stages or phases seems bound to fail” (1995, p93).
Tennant and Pogson highlight the growing importance of individual experience, suggesting that the physiological and biological factors associated with aging “are not sufficient to support existing concepts of age-appropriate behaviour” (p109), their sentiment is also expressed by Marohn (1999), where age in relation to society is considered as a social construct, with expectations around different ages varying according to relevant varying societal values.
If age as represented in staged theories of adult development is viewed as a mixture of both social expectations and physical changes, it could be suggested that normative historical experience is included in the models through the implication that experience and age are inextricably linked. The primary criticism of these models, coming about in more modern literature is that age and experience do not have to progress in a linear fashion at the same pace, which appears to be the primary issue in models that show the Generation Y as being less mature than their ages indicate they should be.
Mary has also suggested that a cause for the decreasing relevance of age based developmental theory is the increasing level of individualisation in Western society (2006), with more people especially women, returning to study in later years, getting married at varied ages, having children later, and changing career several times (Galston 2007), it could be suggested that the shift being focussed upon between adolescence and adulthood is a symptom of the broadening of pathways and social acceptance available in greater society.
Another factor contributing to the weakening of age related development theories is the greater focus of women in later research, with the suggestion that women don’t tend to develop in a linear fashion, rather tending to pause between developmental phases and return later (Tennant and Pogson, 1995).
Marohn is another critic of development being defined through age, taking aim at Blos’ prolonged adolescence, suggesting that “Blos described prolonged adolescence as similar to a character disorder” (p4) on the basis of Blos’ work highlighting the need for individuation and the mismatch between behavioural expectations and age. Marohn suggests that contrary to Blos’ theory, identity formation and structure evolves through adolescence, being achieved in later life, rather than Blos’ assertion that adolescence sees a stability of personality. Although Marohn and Blos come from starkly different approaches, their disagreement around when personality is consolidated and stucturalised echoes the central tenet of the proponents of prolonged adolescence as a developmental stage, which is that identity formation is occurring later in life. On this point Marohn and Blos’ work agrees, despite their obviously different perspectives as to identity development and its relation to age in general.
Based on the trends cited in the literature, and the general shift away from age as a primary descriptor of development, it can be suggested that society’s shifting perspectives seen through the developmental variations of Generation Y around ageing are being reflected in developmental theories, which are increasingly citing experience, and not age as a key determinant of adult development.
An alternate approach
Considering the criticism of life stage type models for adult development, particularly in relation to Generation Y, a number of theories have been developed with as a response to the perceived shortcomings, suggesting an approach with greater emphasis on experience and individual life events.
Baltes, Reese and Lipsitt (in Tennant 1995) suggest that age alone cannot determine development, highlighting three influences as; normative age graded, normative history graded, and non-normative. Their work suggests that age graded influences can be biological, or sociocultural events linked with age, which aligns with phased theories. Additionally, their inclusion of normative history graded developmental cues, including events such as war, economic change and environmental events aligns with Howe and Straus’ generational definition (2000) somewhat, which proposes that different ages are impacted by normative history events in different ways. Baltes et al’s recognition of the developmental impacts of normative history-graded events highlights that historical events have the potential to shape generations developmentally, which, when considering claims that Generation Y are immature, bears an explanation as to how a whole generation can be considered immature.
Riegel (in Tennant 1995) suggests a dialectical understanding, viewing development as a “constant dialectic between the developing person and the evolving society” (p93) highlighting the relationship between the biological, individual-psychological, cultural socio-logical, and outer physical dimensions where conflict between two or more states is a regular event that prompts development. Comparing Riegel’s assessment to proposals about prolonged adolescence, and the disparaging comments regarding Generation Y in popular media, it could be said that a state of conflict is evident with life stage theorists highlighting that biological dimensions are not aligned with some socio-cultural expectations. Erikson’s psychosocial moratorium, although fitting within a model that Riegel’s ideology departs from, partially addresses the psychological dimension by highlighting the feeling of unreadiness so often cited when discussing Generation Y. In this regard, Riegel’s model offers a more holistic approach that life stage based theory.
Clark and Caffarella (1999) also highlight the usefulness of a multidimensional framework as an analytical tool. Their model, as Riegels and Baltes et al’s does, suggests a biological perspective, and like Riegels also a psychological perspective. Their socio cultural perspective directly acknowledges that “social and cultural aspects of our lives are the primary forces that drive growth and change in adulthood” (p6), suggesting that the interrelations between nationality, ethnicity, social class and sexual orientation influence how adults develop, which is of increasing relevance considering the onus on individuation in society (Grossman 2006, Mary 2006) Their final perspective, the integrative perspective, highlights that the others three perspectives all interrelate in a complex manner. Their approach addresses the apparent conflict of development Generation Y face, particularly through the integrative perspective, which in reference to Baltes et al’s assertions (in Tennant and Pogson 2005) highlights the need for complexity and tension in development.
Considering the literature, it appears that an alternate approach to studying the behaviour of Generation Y is to give the socio-historic environment and individual life events greater priority which reduces what the life stage approach perceives to be as either a developmental or theoretical problem to a question of how Generation Y as an age group are relating to their collective and individual experiences in the world.
Is there room for both life stage and alternate perspectives?
Life stage models where age is tied to experience regarding adult development will always be debated and require updating because age as these models view it, is in part a social construct, as the proposals for an additional life stage suggest through their notation of changing social, not physical conditions. Despite their criticisms and inadequacies, discussions around updates to life stage models such as Erikson’s hold some value in the Western world as they highlight the changing values held by society and provide a certain barometer of social normality through which the trend toward individualisation can be consolidated.
The literature that criticises life stage models also bring value to the discussion around adult development as it highlights the increasing trend towards individualism and provide important points of debate around relevance to life stage models by suggesting that adult development need not be dictated solely by age and social norms, and that individuation may not be the most desirable outcome.
In relation to examining Generation Y, both perspectives are useful, as can be seen through the debate that is underway around the developmental status of Generation Y, who do not fit within traditional life stage models. In this instance the developmental models are serving as a catalyst for debate around society’s shifting values, in particular, the changing markers of adulthood. Alternate development theories add hold value to the discussion surrounding Generation Y’s developmental status as they allow more in depth personal analysis and reflection which is free of a generalized model’s restrictions, echoing society’s increasing level of individualisation, and reflect the level of self interest evident in the society in which Generation Y have been raised (Grossman 2006). In short, both approaches can assist by informing each other, and researchers in different manners.
Conclusion
When comparing academic literature to Erikson’s Eight Stages of Man, it is clear that Generation Y possess many adolescent traits (Gibb 2009), and in examining why this may be the case, it can be concluded that the Western world in general has delayed those markers traditionally associated with adulthood. People can no longer leave school and expect to attain the markers of adulthood as they did when many life stage theories came about, and as such, an extension of adolescent behaviour is continuing. Literature taking an alternate approach, focusing on experience and the individual reflects society’s changing values and provides an alternate complimentary perspective on development which takes the individual into greater account. As such, life stage theories highlight behavioural traits that indicate Generation Y is experiencing the world differently to past Generations, and alternate theories more recognising of social constructs provide explanation as to why this may be, and of its value to the individual.
References
Arnett, J. 2000 Emerging Adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties American Psychologist Vol 55. Iss. 5 p469-480
Bandura, A. 1977, Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Engelewood Cliffs, N.J.
Blos, P. 1962 On Adolescence : a psychoanalytic interpretation, Free Press of Glencoe, New York
Brooks, D. 2007, The Odyssey Years, The New York Times, October 9, 2007
Available: www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09brooks.html
Accessed: 03 June 2009
Clark, M.C. Caffarella, R.S. Theorizing Adult Development, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 84, Winter 1999
Erikson, E. 1950, Childhood and Society, 2nd ed. Penguin
Erikson, E. 1968, Identity: Youth and Crisis W.W. Norton & Company Inc, New York
Galston, W. A. 2007, The Changing Twenties, Brookings Institute
Available: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/speeches/2007/1004useconomics_galston/galston20071004.pdf
Accessed: 01 June 2009
Gibb, S. 2009 Do Generation Y exist? How do the commonly cited attributes of Generation Y compare to Erikson’s Eight Stages of Psychosocial development, Blog: Mollybob Goes to School
Available http://mollybob.wordpress.com/do-generation-y-exist/
Accessed: 03 June 2009
Grossman, L. 2006, “Time’s Person of the Year: You” Time Magazine Dec 25 2006
Hayford, S.R. Furstenberg, F.F. 2008, Delayed Adulthood, Delayed Desistance? Trends in Age Distribution of Problem Behaviours, Journal of Research on Adolescence, Vol. 18, No. 2 pp285-304
Howe, N. and Strauss, W. 2000, Millennials Rising: the next generation, Vintage, New York
Hoyer, W. J. and Roodin, P.A. 2005, Adult Development and Aging, 5th ed. McGraw Hill, New York
Huntley, R. 2006, The World According to Y, Allen and Unwin, Sydney
McCrindle, M. 2003, “Understanding Generation Y” Principle Matters, Vol 55, pp28-31
Marohn, R. 1998, A reexamination of Peter Blos’s concept of prolonged adolescence (rev. & ed. S. Doctors & J. Leiter). Adolescent Psychiatry, 23:3–20. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press
Mary, A. 2006, The Emergence of a New Development Stage: ‘Twenhood’, Comparing Children Families and Risks, Tampere University Press, Tampere
Philip, D. 2007, “The Knowledge Building Paradigm: A model of learning for net generation students”, Journal of Online Education Vol. 3, Iss. 5, June/July 2007
Salt, B. 2009, “The Recession Generation”, Herald Sun, March 17 2009
Available: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25197378-5018797,00.html
Accessed: 28/04/2009
Seabrook, J. 2007, “Children of the Market”, The Guardian, 17 June 2007
Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/17/childrenofthemarket
Accessed: 31/10/2008
Tennant, M. Pogson, P. 1995 Learning and Change in the Adult Years, Joey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco
Unknown 2007, Workforce Participation Trends in South Australia, Government of South Australia Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology
Available: http://www.workforceinfoservice.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/6050/workforceParticipationTrends.pdf
Accessed: 01 June 2009
Unknown, 2006, 4102.0 – Australian Social Trends, 2006, Australian Bureau of Statistics
Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ABS@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/0f152d0eab2c88bdca2571b000153da2!OpenDocument
Accessed: 01 June 2009
Why Don’t Generation Y Just Grow Up? by Shelley Gibb is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.
0 Responses to “Why don’t Generation Y just grow up?”