‘Generation Me’: A product of circumstance or doomed to repeat? An American Perspective

Candidate: Elleanor Benbow (4183022)

Patterns of Action Dissertation

Word count: 3,746

‘Generation Me’: A product of circumstance or doomed to repeat? An American Perspective

The claim that each generation is not as good as the one that came before it is an age-old tale. However, this essay intends to investigate whether these generations are so-called ‘worse’ 1 due to the events that each generation experiences during its maturation, or due to its pre- determined role throughout time. Schaie (1965) describes a generation as a cohort and individuals that are born around a similar time and who share distinctive and important social or historical events during their lives during periods of critical development. This essay will describe and compare the characteristics of the Baby Boomer generation, Generation X and the Millennial generation and determine whether the traits that are most associated with each generation are the product of the events that have helped shaped their lives, or whether they are due to an ongoing cycle of generations, which has been played out for centuries throughout human history.

Though there is much debate regarding the birth dates for each generation, the Baby Boomer generation (hereafter ‘Boomers’) was born during the post-World War II baby boom, between the years of 1946-1964 (Colby & Ortman, 2014), Generation X as being born from 1965- 1981 (Twenge et al., 2010) and Millennials, or ‘Generation Me’ (Twenge, 2006), having been born during or after 1980 (Ng, Schweitzer and Lyons 2010) until the mid-2000s, though Ng, Lyons and Schweitzer argue that due to the debate surrounding the start and end years of each generation that these should be used as frames of reference for the continuous flow of social change, rather than the firm boundaries of birth years.

As would be expected even with the natural progression of time, due to historical events, new inventions and developments in technologies and changes in social custom and fashion, the characteristics of each generation have changed dramatically. Scott (2000) argues that the value systems that each generation experience in their youth remain with them throughout their lives, becoming the ‘anchor’ against which individuals interpret future experiences. For the Boomer generation, the Americans list the most important memories of the past 50 years as the Cuban missile crisis, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the moon landings and the social, sexual and drug experimentations of the age (Schuman and Scott, 1989), are most commonly associated with a redefinition of traditional values and a collective belief that the world would improve with time (Owram, 1997). In the workplace, Boomers have been described as being results-driven, plan to stay with one company for the long term and give maximum effort in the workplace (Society of Human Resource Management, 2004) suggesting an institutional loyalty and awareness. Boomers have also been found to more highly value intrinsic rewards from jobs, such as finding meaning in life and placing less importance on status and money than both GenX and Millennials (Ng, Lyons and Schweitzer, 2012).

Generation X, on the other hand, is more commonly described as “active, balanced and happy” (Miller, 2011 pg. 1), they are family-orientated, highly educated and engaged in both the work and social aspects of their lives (Miller 2011). Prominent events that occurred for GenX were the AIDS epidemic, the economic uncertainty, rising divorce rates, an increasing probability of witnessing the downsizing of parents’ jobs and have a worldview that is based upon change and the need to combat corruption (Henseler, 2012).

The Millennials are viewed rather in a more positive light; they are believed to be optimistic and relatively unattached from organised religion and politics, and have been referred to as “digital natives” due to their avid use of new technologies and social media (Taylor et al., 2014). Key events defining this generation are events such as the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York (hereby referred to as “9/11”). The development of social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, which have allowed increasingly fast communication and the continuing globalisation of the world, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America and the 2008 financial crisis (Tran, 2011).

As outlined above, these vastly differing traits suggest that each generation has developed a distinct identity and role within the global structure, however there is debate as to whether these differences are due to the major current events witnessed and endured by each generation, or whether this is due to the cyclical nature of generations and that each of these changes are pre- determined, regardless of the events that individuals claim define their generation.

2

A large amount of the work conducted comparing the generations has been in the field of occupational psychology, as business managers are increasingly interested in the ways to most effectively manage each generation and to entice Millennials into working for their firms. Stewart and Bernhardt (2010) compared Millennials to pre-1987 and pre-1990 undergraduate students on measures of self-assuredness, impulse control, psychological health, achievement assets and narcissism. Millennials were found to score substantially lower on measures of psychological health, achievement assets and impulse control and somewhat lower on measures of self- assuredness, though it has been suggested that these claims are due to maturation and the ages at which these measures were originally taken, rather than due to generational effects (Trzesniewski and Donnellan, 2010). Cennamo & Gardner (2008) also found that Millennials focus more on gaining status and reward within their careers, though this also could be due to the age differences between these samples rather than a generational change. In order to combat the issue of separating generational changes from age changes, Twenge (2010) developed a method of cross-temporal meta-analysis, using data from the last 50 years, where the association between year of data collection and average score on measures of personality of attitudes on samples with restricted variability of age, such as college students. This counters previous issues in literature of researchers failing to isolate generational effects that may be due to age, career or lifestyle stage in their research (Rhodes, 1983). However, Trzesniewski and Donnellan (2010) argue that the literature stated to support the negative ‘Generation Me’ image of Millennials is limited, due to substantial sampling concerns, particularly conclusions from Twenge (2006) claiming that those born from 1970 onwards exhibit higher on levels of self-esteem and external locus of control, and lower on measures of happiness, social concern and well-being. They suggest that there are important questions to be asked relating to the exact size and scope of the generational differences that are reported and how the differences should be reported and interpreted within the academic community.

Recently, researchers have argued that the increasing globalisation of the world has created a more global development of generations (Ng, Lyons and Schweitzer 2010); generations have traditionally been understood in national terms, with local events and history shaping them. Now, due to social media and the ease and immediacy with which individuals can connect and share with strangers from around the world, youth consciousness is increasingly shaped by global events which can be felt immediately in all corners of the world, meaning that people are thus fixed in their generationally different subjective groups. Edwards and Turner (2005) argue that it is this globalisation and the speed and ease with which traumatic experiences, such as 9/11, can be shared and experienced globally that have facilitated the development of global generations. In order to understand the behaviour of the Millennial generation, one must therefore understand the events that occurred to shape them. For many Americans 9/11 is one of the key events of their lives. It has been described as the “largest act of terrorism in US history” (Galea et al., 2002), sparking the ‘War on Terror’ with approximately 3000 people being killed. In fact, 94% of Millennials interviewed named 9/11 as one of the top 5 most important events of the decade (Tran, 2011), and have described it as the first major tragedy that “hit close to home” (pg. 30). The enduring effect of this event has caused Millennials to have been dubbed “Generation 9/11” by people and news outlets around the world (Newsweek, 2001). Indeed, the consequences of this event are still being felt today; anxiety levels are still higher than pre-2001 (Bosco and Harvey, 2008) and 76% of Americans are “concerned” or “very concerned” about future terror attacks (Redlener, Markenson and Grant, 2003). Ng, Lyons and Schweitzer (2012) have argued that these consequences are also affecting Millennials in the work place, with Millennials being labelled things such as ‘emotionally needy’ (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007) and ‘high maintenance’ (Hira, 2007) due to a belief that the trauma of 9/11 has caused Millennials to constantly seek approval, validation, praise and entertainment within the work place (Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil, 2004). It has also been suggested (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010) that events such as 9/11 have caused Millennials to re-evaluate their priorities, instead choosing a job which has a stronger emphasis on work-life balance. This has been posited as due to Millennials observing their parents choosing to focus on their jobs and corporate loyalty and yet still fall victim to frequent redundancy layoffs, corporate downsizing and increasing divorce rates (Loughlin and Barling, 2001). This suggests a view similar to Mannheim’s Theory of Generations (1923), whereby, through the socio-historical environment of their youth, generations acquire their global consciousness. Mannheim posits that a

3 major event will occur during the maturation of the generation which will shape their lives, with later experiences deriving meaning from those earlier experiences.

With the trauma of 9/11 being blamed for increases in anxiety, the increasing demands of Millennials within the work force and increasing fears over future terrorist attacks it is easy to see how individuals may believe 9/11 to be the cause of the dramatic change between this generation and the generations before it. Whilst the shaping of a generation through shared traumatic and significant experiences appears convincingly throughout the literature, there is an increasing body of theory and evidence suggesting that the nature of each generation is pre-determined (Strauss & Howe, 1991).

Cyclical theories of generations are commonly occurring; from Ortega y Gasset’s (1941; 1944) philosophical exploration of the cyclical nature and durations of generations, to Schlesinger (1986) and to Strauss-Howe generational theory. Levine (1981) proposed that society oscillates between eras of community ascendancy, with a concern for others and a renouncement of material values, and periods of individual ascendancy, which focus more on the self, concerned with rights and the differences between people, based on his analysis of 1970s college students’ beliefs and values. He argues that it is these alternating periods that shape the lives and character of each generation. Schlesinger supports this, focusing explicitly on American history, he suggests history ebbs and flows in roughly 30 year cycles, dominated by either public purpose or private interest and argues that each generation flows out of the conditions and the contradictions that came before it, meaning that each cycle is self-generating and cannot be determined, “short of catastrophe” (pg. 27), by events external to it.

A more recent theory of generations is Strauss-Howe generational theory (1991; 1997); developed by observing the ebbs and flows of previous generations and the catalysts for each ‘turning’, or change, in generational behaviour and characteristics. Strauss and Howe identify four recurrent themes throughout history; a post-crisis “high”, the “awakening”, the “unravelling” and, the fourth turning, “crisis”. Each turning takes roughly 10-22 years. The whole process is referred to as a ‘saeculum’, so chosen due to its Latin meaning of a ‘long human life’ as when each new crisis arises there are few, if any, who can remember the previous crisis period.

The first turning is the ‘High’, with America’s most recent first turning being the post- World War II generation, born 1946-1960. This is a post-crisis era, where institutions are strong, individualism is weak and the desire for cohesion and order is high. The Prophet archetype is born during this time, they grow up as indulged and self-absorbed children, they are the crusaders of the awakening and focus on goals and principles in their midlife, emerging as elders during the next crisis of the saeculum. Previous “Highs” throughout history are the ‘Missionary Generation’ from 1860-1882 in the post-Civil war era, with savings rates soaring and mass production rates increasing; the ‘Transcendental Generation’ from 1792-1821, where civil disorder was rare and an “era of epical social harmony” (pg. 132) and the ‘Awakening Generation’ 1704-1727, and an age of booming trade and rising living standards (Strauss and Howe 1997).

The second turning is the “Awakening”, where personal and spiritual autonomy rule and institutions are attacked. Generation X children, born 1961-1981, were born into an era of passionate social upheaval and personal liberation where people yearned to recapture their personal authenticity. The most recent awakening period was the “Consciousness Revolution” from the American tax riots of the mid-1960s to the campus riots of the mid-1980s. During this turning the Nomad archetype was born; Nomads were under-protected children and came of age as alienated post-awakening adults, searching for a time of social ideals and spiritual ideas. They become pragmatic mid-life leaders during the crisis and will emerge as post-crisis elders.

The “Unravelling” follows; the third turning is a time of strong individualism and weak institutions heralding a mood that is completely opposite to the “high”. The Millennial generation, born 1982-2004, are the Hero archetype, who will grow up as increasingly protected children and become team-oriented optimists throughout this time of self-reliance. They are tasked as the generation to endure and rebuild through the crisis. The most recent completed cycle of ‘Heroes’ are the G.I. Generation, or the ‘Greatest Generation’ (Brokaw, 1998). The Millennials are predicted

4 to continue the work of the G.I. Generation and will decide how America (and the rest of the world) will weather the storm, to either elevate the nation to new heights or destroy the nation (Howe and Strauss, 1997).

The fourth and final turning of this saeculum is the “Crisis”. Howe and Strauss (1997) hypothesised the crisis would occur around 2005, and Strauss has since argued, in podcasts and blog posts alike, that the crisis occurred in 2008, in the form of the financial crisis. This generation are pre-emptively referred to as the Homeland Generation, born 2005-present. The fourth turning is an era where institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to national threats, civic authority is revived and community purpose and membership of groups is at the foreground once again. Supposedly, Artists are born during this cycle; they grow up during a time of great political and social complexity and emerge as over-protected children and become process-oriented mid-lifers during the awakening (Howe and Strauss, 1997). The most recently completed cycle of Artists is the “Silent Generation”, born 1925-1942; Time magazine coined the name the Silent generation in 1951, who are seen to be unassuming and adaptive, accepting the opinions of others rather than rebelling (Johnson and Romanello, 2005). This trend suggests that the “Homeland” generation will follow in similar footsteps, accepting the values and rules of their Millennial parents and strengthen the post-Crisis institutions with their desire for job security and conformity within their lives.

Strauss and Howe have made several predictions regarding how the fourth turning will develop and unfold. In ‘The Fourth Turning’ Strauss and Howe (1997) predicted that the event that would act as the crisis would occur in roughly 2005; Strauss has since argued that it is the 2008 financial crisis that is this generation’s turning point. From Strauss and Howe’s work, this would suggest that the climax of the crisis will occur in roughly year 2020 and the resolution will occur in year 2026. Coomes (2004) argues that the coming years for Millennials will contain several challenges such creating a United States that can actively help other nations, whilst also keeping peace within the nation and protecting its security will be the hardest task that Millennials will face. However, due to the Millennial’s ‘conciliatory nature’ and Coomes’ prediction Millennials will turn to the history of the last civic nation, the G.I. Generation, for guidance, suggesting the similarities between these two generations will be great and therefore lending further support to the optimism of Strauss & Howe’s generational theory.

However, in stark contrast to Strauss and Howe’s optimism for Millennials, Twenge has repeatedly portrayed a much more negative picture of the generation. Twenge and Campbell (2008) suggest that Millennials are showing a decline in academic performance and an increase in entitled behaviours, due to rising levels of narcissism within the generations. If Millennials are being found to have higher levels of egotism, psychological distress and levels of misery in this more robust and scientific methodology (Twenge 2006), then Strauss and Howe’s view of Millennials as the ‘Heroes’ of the next crisis is strongly misplaced in such a self-involved generation (Twenge, 2006). Strauss and Howe (1997) also argue that Millennials will be seekers of order and harmony, which will be demonstrated by their institutional loyalty; however only 50% of Millennials report a desire to spend their career in one company and Millennials ranked commitment to social responsibility and opportunities to have a social impact as the lowest on a list of desired work attributes (Ng, Lyons and Schweitzer, 2010).

Furthermore, Wilson and Gerber (2008) argue that Strauss and Howe fail to adequately deal with the demographics and social realities of race, ethnicity and class within social society, with claims arguing that the label ‘Millennials’ is applicable only to affluent, white middle class teenagers and does not apply to those who under-achieve, are poor or are minorities (Hoover, 2009). This theme of alienation to those who do not comply with the mould of each turning is recurrent throughout Strauss and Howe’s work, who appear to “cherry-pick” their evidence and over-look or ignore the important role chance and outside events have on the development of a generation (Aanested, 1993). In order to fulfil the requirements for a “Hero” generation, Strauss and Howe would now have to overlook the increasing body of evidence arguing that Millennials currently do not seem to be developing into a generation that are fit to guide a nation through a crisis, if factors such as narcissism are taken into account. Twenge (2006) has also dubbed the Millennial generation “Generation Me” in response to the increasing literature and evidence surrounding the egotism of this new generation. Perhaps the characteristics of this generation and 5 their role within the fourth turning must be re-evaluated. However, this may also perhaps be a sign that Millennials will not lead the world into a new ‘Golden Age’, but will instead be unable to fix the crisis and will lead the world into something “unspeakably worse” (Howe & Strauss 1997. pg. 278), leading to a time of ruin.

A second, and possibly stronger, criticism of Strauss and Howe is the pre-deterministic assumption that all members of a generation will react in exactly the same way to the key socio- cultural and socio-economic events throughout history (Giancola, 2006). Giancola argues that people react in many different ways to events in their lives and history; events such as 9/11 can cause any manner of emotions in generations and these effects should not be minimised and reduced to the feelings that have been felt by a particular group or subset. Fox (1989) warns of the ‘ethnographic dazzle’, whereby people and researchers alike are blinded to the similarities between human groups and cultures due to the more highly visible surface differences. This suggests that the distinct generations of Strauss and Howe’s generational theory are not so dissimilar from each other, but are rather more alike, suggesting that it is the unique events each generation experiences that would differentiate them from one another.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the increasing globalisation that has been previously mentioned, and its ability to create global generations, will cause generations and cultures to become more similar to each other, with events being experienced and discussed identically around the world. Deal (2007), however, argues that the study of generations can have increasingly negative applications in the real-world, as the ethnographic dazzle can lead managers to overlook the common traits that unite all human beings throughout the workplace. Instead, Deal argues that all generations have similar values; they just choose to express these differently, though such a strict line that there are no generational differences also cannot widely be supported by empirical research (Twenge, 2006; Stewart and Bernhardt, 2010).

Further support for the argument that key events shape generations is provided by Twenge (2006), who argues that the self-esteem movement, whereby the efforts of parents and teachers were directed at raising the self-opinions and esteem of children, regardless of whether the work produced was of a high quality, has produced “an army of little narcissists” (pg. 223), rather than the happy and confident generation it had intended. If this is indeed the cause of the increased levels of narcissism, egotism and self-esteem that have proved such a departure from the optimistic, team-oriented and heroic generation that Strauss and Howe (1997) predicted, then this is clear support for the defining role of experience and circumstance within the development and formation of the values and ideals of a generation. Perhaps, where these movements were previously only felt by a few in certain geographical locations, the previous effects of movements like this would not be felt so universally. However, due to globalisation ensuring that trends such as these can be experienced worldwide, there will be increasing changes in the previously stratified cycles of generations due to previously unavailable and unthinkable reasons.

To conclude, this essay has investigated the potential reasons for the vastly different traits that characterise each generation, from the traditional Baby Boomers, the active Generation X and to the arguably optimistic or narcissistic nature of the Millennials. From research such as Strauss- Howe’s Generational Theory, which details the supposed continuous cycles of generations throughout time to evidence suggesting that events such as 9/11 and the economic crisis and their roles within shaping generations have been discussed. Though Strauss & Howe (1991; 1997) refute the claim that events and experiences can change the course of a generation, recent literature from Twenge (2006; 2008) and Stewart and Bernhardt (2010), among many more discussed throughout this essay, suggest that the role of the Millennial generation is changing, jeopardizing their place as the ‘Heroes’ of the latest Crisis. This perhaps must lead to the conclusion that these developments in communication and its potential for vast, universal effects may alter the course of human history and psychology forever.

6

References

Aanestad, Gregg (1993). The Bust Generation: A Cohort Analysis (Ph.D.). University of Hawaii.

Bosco, S. M., & Harvey, D. M. (2008). Effects of Terror Attacks on Students' Anxiety Levels and

Workplace Perceptions-Five Years Later. College Student Journal, 42(3), 895.

Brokaw, T. (1998). The Greatest Generation. Random House Incorporated.

Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and

person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (23), 891-906.

Colby, S. L. & Ortman (2014). The Baby Boom Cohort in the United States: 2012 to 2060.

Population Estimates and Projections,Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

Coomes, M. D. (2004). Understanding the historical and cultural influences that shape generations.

New Directions for Student Services (106), 17-31.

Crumpacker, M. and Crumpacker, J.D. (2007), “Succession planning and generational stereotypes:

should HR consider age‐ based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad?”,

Public Personnel Management, (36)4, 349‐69.

Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the Generation Gap: How Employees Young and Old Can Find

Common Ground. John Wiley & Sons.

7

Fox, R. 1989. The Search for Society: Quest for a Biosocial Science and Morality. New Brunswick,

NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Galea, S., Resnick, H., Ahern, M. J., Gold, J., Bucuvalas, M., Kilpatrick, D., Stuber, J. & Vlahov, D.

(2002). Posttraumatic stress disorder in Manhattan, New York City, after the September

11th terrorist attacks. Journal of Urban Health, 79(3), 340-353.

Giancola, F. (2006), “The generation gap: more myth than reality”, Human Resource Planning, (32)

37.

Henseler, C. (Ed.). (2012). Generation X goes global: Mapping a youth culture in motion.

Routledge.

Hira, N. (2007), “You raised them, now manage them”, Fortune, 155(9), 38‐48.

Hoover, Eric (11 October 2009). "The Millennial Muddle: How stereotyping students became a

thriving industry and a bundle of contradictions". The Chronicle of Higher Education (The

Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc.). Retrieved 11 January 2011.

Johnson, S. A., & Romanello, M. L. (2005). Generational diversity: teaching and learning

approaches. Nurse Educator, 30(5), 212-216.

Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004). The millennial effect: Implications for academic

development. Proceedings of the 2004 annual international conference of the Higher

Education Research and Dev Kantrowitz, B. (2001, November 11). Generation 9-11.

Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.newsweek.com/generation-9-11-149333nt

Society of Australasia (HERDSA), 194-207.

8

Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000). “Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management”,

Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65‐76.

Levine, A. (1981) When Dreams and Heroes Died: A Portrait of Today’s College Student. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Loughlin, C, Barling, J (2001) Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and behaviours. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology (74), 543-558.

Mannheim, K. (1952). ‘The Problem of Generations’ in Mannheim, K. Essays on the Sociology of

Knowledge, London: RKP (first published 1923).

Miller, J. D. (2011). Active, Balanced, and Happy: These young Americans are not bowling alone.

The Generation X Report A Quarterly Research Report from the Longitudinal Study of

American Youth 1(1).

Ng, E. S., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study

of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 281-292.

Ng, E., Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (Eds.). (2012). Managing the new workforce: International

perspectives on the millennial generation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1941/1961) History as a System and Other Essays Toward a Philosophy of

History. New York: Norton.

Ortega y Gasset, J. Mission of the University (H. L. Nostrand, ed. and trans.). New York: Norton,

1992. (Originally published 1944)

Owram, D. (1997). Born at the right time: A history of the baby boom generation. University of

Toronto Press.

9

Redlener I, Markenson D, Grant R. (2003). How Americans Feel About Terrorism and Security:

Two Years After 9/11. New York, NY: National Centre for Disaster Preparedness, Columbia

University, Mailman School of Public Health.

Rhodes, S.R. (1983). “Age‐related differences in work attitudes and behaviour: a review and

conceptual analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328‐67.

Schaie, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological

Bulletin, (64), 92-107.

Schlesinger Jr., A. M. (1986) The Cycles of American History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American sociological

review, 54(3), 359-381.

Scott, J. 2000. Is it a different world to when you were growing up? Generational effects on social

representations and child-rearing values. British Journal of Sociology, (51) 355-376.

Society of Human Research Management. 2004. SHRM generational differences survey report: A

study by the Society for Human Resources Management. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Stewart, K. D., & Bernhardt, P. C. (2010). Comparing Millennials to pre-1987 students and with one

another. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 579.

Strauss, W., and Howe, N. (1991) Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069.

New York: Morrow.

Strauss, B. & Howe, N. (1997), The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, Broadway Books,

New York, NY.

10

Taylor, P., Doherty, C., Parker, K. & Krishnamurthy (2014). Millennials in Adulthood: Detached

from Institutions, Networked with Friends, Pew Research Centre

Tran, T. M. (2011). Unscathed: The Millennial Generation and the Pivotal Decade that Shaped It.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boston College, Boston, United States of America.

Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation Me” a study of cohort

effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 58-75.

Twenge J.M. (2006). Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive,

entitled—and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. 2008. Generational differences in psychological traits and their

impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (23), 862-877.

Wilson, M., & Gerber, L. E. (2008). How generational theory can improve teaching: Strategies for

working with the “Millennials”. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 29-44.

11