Article: Gaps and Bridges Among Generations

The differences among generations are often the subject of much speculation, however, there is a small number of studies that would confirm them on the basis of reliable and adequate data. In order to find out the impact of generations on differences among individuals, we would need to compare various people of the same age in different time periods. One of the criticisms pertaining to current studies refers to the fact that the majority of studies do not involve the whole population in relation to the socio-economic status. Mostly, they involve the data of middle to higher socio-economic groups and are excessively ethnocentric – they refer to cultures as associated with the Western capitalist world (Reeves and Oh, 2007).

Edmunds and Turner (2005, in Anderlič, 2008) suggest a new concept of studying generations, i.e., the concept of global generations, that goes beyond the frameworks set by national borders, since the phenomenon of globalisation has also caused social events to be globalised (e.g., the attack on WTC was seen live by millions of people around the world and this event provoked a global concern regarding the potential terrorist attacks and increased security measures on various levels). Due to the development and the growth of information and communication technology (internet), media (international television programmes), increased spatial mobility (tourism, travel), education and free movement of labour, generations tend to become more and more alike on the global level.

Before we venture further on with our discussion, certain notions need to be identified, such as age group, cohort and generation. Age corresponds to the level of biological maturity of organisms and refers to a number of variables stretching from cognitive functioning to normal social expectations (Birren and Schaie, 2001, in Bangerter, 2005). The concept of cohort and generation is different from the concept of age, in that it involves a historical dimension. Cohort is an ensemble of people with experience of a particular event (usually birth) in a particular time period (Ryder, 1965, in Bangerter, 2005). The concept of generation is used in sociology and has got at least three aspects:

• Genealogical – refers to the sequence of vertical family relations (generation of grandparents, parents, children);
• Educational – referring to the transfer of cultural knowledge;
• Sociohistorical – used to label various social groups whose members have a similar experience in relation to the social circumstances of socialisation, e.g., they grew up in the period of the great recession, and similar experiences of historical events, e.g., they witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall, the first manned mission to land on the Moon (Hopflinger, 1999; Mannheim, 1952, in Bangerter, 2005).

According to Meinnheim (in Gržina and Nastran Ule, 1996), the generational unit or social generation is defined by a group of people who belong to the same sociohistorical place, participate in topical social and spiritual interactions and have a common system of processing feelings and experiences.

When we discuss generation(s) further on, we shall bear in mind, above all, the sociohistorical aspect.

Howe and Strauss (2000, in Reeves and Oh, 2008) are convinced that a generation is formed largely by the common history and less by chronological data. The nature of a generation, more than the year of birth, is defined by three characteristics:

• perceived membership – a person experiences adherence to a generation, which begins in adolescence and continues all the way into early adulthood;
• common beliefs and behaviours – people share similar beliefs (e.g., regarding family, career, private life, politics, religion etc.) and show similar behaviour (e.g., career choice, decisions on marriage and having children, health issues, sex, drugs etc.) that are characteristic of a particular generation;
• common location in history – turning points in historical guidelines (e.g., from

conservative to liberal politics) and relevant events taking place during the formative period – adolescence and early adulthood (e.g., war).

Karl Meinnheim, who has set foundations to study generational states, wrote that the source of differences among generations stem from the fact that people who are born in a particular society in various periods have different key life experiences. The more the circumstances change in society, the bigger is the gap between generations, or rather the bigger the differences among generations the bigger is generational gap. Generations have got different time framework that are set by social changes. Smaller differences in age among individuals may in certain cases mean greater changes in adherence towards a particular generation, since sudden events may change the social experience of youth (Bonnin, 2006, Arsenault, 2003 in Anderlič, 2008). Since Meinnheim published his article in 1928 titled The Problem of Generations in which he accounted for his theory on generations (Anderlič, 2008), researchers have striven to explain the impact of sociocultural setting on an individual’s personality and his behaviour. They pay special attention to those influences that are unique for every generation.

The turning historical events are stamped onto the collective conscience of people and also onto the collective unconscious, especially if an individual experiences them during childhood, adolescence or early adulthood; that is, in the period when a person’s personality is formed. These turning global events (political, historical, economic), cultural values and, last but not least, fashion and music of a particular period, leave relevant psychological characteristics that are common to individuals belonging to the same generation.

Similar life experience shared by those who belong to the same generation, represent

the common ground that joins them, links them and facilitates interpersonal communication and understanding. Quite contrarily, those people who belong to different generations have different life experience that may represent an obstacle in interpersonal understanding and makes empathy, the basis of interpersonal relations, difficult to attain.

Changes in socio-cultural environment that are the consequences of relevant historical, political and economic events, have an impact not only on the way we see and experience ourselves, but also on the way we see and experience each other. In their survey, Konrat and colleagues (2014), find out that the emotional component of empathy (the ability of an individual to sympathise with the misfortune of other people) as well as the cognitive component of empathy (the ability to put ourselves in the perspective of other people) has been considerably on the decrease since the 1970s. If we take into account the fact that empathy is associated with various forms of prosocial behaviour, the decrease of empathy has a relevant impact on everyday life and relations among people. Some see it as another side of the growing egocentrism of the Millennial generation.

There forms a question on whether it is possible to go beyond the things that divide the adherents of different generations and make them different to the previous and the future generations, and create a dialogue that will form a bridge between generations.

Belonging to a social group and the self-concept

A relevant element of an individual’s self-concept is group identity, that serves as a point of reference to estimate oneself (Brewer and Gardner,1996; Tajfel, 1978 in Weiss and Lang, 20109). An individual may identify with his age group or with his generation, therefore, two different group identities may be formed: age group identity and/or generation identity (Weis and Lang, 2012). The age group identity refers to the chronological age of an individual and is transitional, or rather the adherence to age group changes through one’s lifetime. Quite contrarily, the generation identity is permanent and does not change with ageing (child, adolescent, adult, older person). The basis of self-definition is associated with the perception of similarities and differences with other members of the social group.

When an individual compares himself with people of a particular age, the focus is on similarities and differences that are based on chronological age. With ageing, the adherence to an age group may become threatening to an individual, because older age is often associated with predominantly negative characteristics and stereotypes, especially with the gradual decrease of vital life functions, the gradual loss of autonomy and once again greater dependence on other people. The negative ageing stereotypes may threaten an individual’s feeling of their own value and their psychological well-being. On the contrary, the comparison with generation is directed at similarities and differences that are based on common social experience, common explanations of historical and cultural events and changes as well as the common system of beliefs (Mannheim, 1952; Settersten, 1999 in Weiss and Lang, 2009). Therefore, it develops from the direct common experience (e.g., experience of war) as well as the indirect experience, lived out through media, especially television and internet. Since the adherence to a generation is permanent, the generation identity is capable to provide a feeling of sense, continuity and stability of an individual.

With ageing or in the second half of one’s life, the generation identity becomes more and more relevant as it represents an important part of one’s self-concept and provides the basis for a positive, clear and relevant social identity. The generation identity assumes the role of adaptive mechanism, because it helps an individual to confront the losses associated with ageing and age. In middle age an individual begins to be more consciously aware of the changes in his social, physical and psychological area and of the fact that his time of life is limited. The generation identity therefore plays an important role in an individual’s confrontation with his limits related to ageing. An individual begins to compare the past and the future, he begins “to look back and forward”. When people become older and are approaching death, the generation identity reflects their view of the world and strengthens their adult self. The need for their life to continue through the next generation steps forward.

The adherence to a generation enables people in middle age and late adulthood to deal more efficiently with their finality and passing of life. The need of an individual to continue the generation, to “outlive the self”, is realised through a strong identification with his generation (Weiss, 2014). McAdams et. al. (1993 in Weiss, 2014) argues that the wish for a “symbolic immortality” motivates people to achieve their generation goals. Many authors see preserving the values as an important life task in the middle age and later. The generation identity is therefore associated with preserving and transferring cultural values from one generation into another. (Weiss, 2014).

Furthermore, Weiss argues that the younger adults do not express such strong generation identity when they contemplate the finality of life, because they see it as a very distant event. Besides, the generation identity is formed with people being born in a particular period and exposed to particular historical events and changes that lead them to collective thinking and behaviour. Younger people have less common experience than older people.

Trauma is also transferred through generation identity. Lazar and Litvak-Hirsch and Chaitin (2008), who researched the impact of the holocaust on younger adults (grandchildren of those who survived it), their families and Israeli society, claim that in Israel, there is a socio-cultural mechanism at work that has an impact on the perception of holocaust as a social trauma in the third generation of the survivors. Prince in his book titled The Legacy of Holocaust: Psychohistorical Themes in the Second Generation claims that the parental experience with holocaust has importantly and uniquely shaped the beliefs, opinions and behaviour of their children and well as the formation of their identity (1985 in Pollak, 1990). Similarly, even other traumatic experiences lived by one generation are transferred to the next generations through transgenerational mechanisms.

Differences among generations

The majority of authors researching generations discuss four or five generations that live side by side in the same period of time and share the same living space. The time milestones that define a particular generation are set relatively loosely, but there is a mutual consent on the individuals up until the age of 29 to be seen as a younger generation, those between 30 and 59 years of age belong to the middle generation and those after the age of 60 are seen as older generation (Torocsik, Szucs & Kehl, 2014).

As there is no clear and unambiguous consent on from when to when one generation is defined in time, various authors compare generations according to various areas (e.g. values, opinions, attitude towards work, authority, communication, family …). Further on, we shall mention just some of them, that indirectly or directly influence also the clinical work with clients. The awareness and the knowledge on the differences and similarities, makes the therapists’ emphatic understanding of clients’ distress and problems easier and enables them to make the clients and themselves accept the fact that they are different.

Although the transition from one into another life period does not change through history and an individual passes through various life periods (childhood, adolescence, adulthood, older age) in the same developmental sequences that are marked with fundamental development milestones and tasks, every generation experiences its own way of mental and physical maturing.

The environment alongside the scientific and technological circumstances and cultural and economic relations that surround the generation, is essentially changing. The socialisation of younger generations takes place in different conditions as the socialisation of older generations. Accepting new values and new behavioural patterns of younger people often represents a problem for their parents, teachers, employers and vice-versa.

Certainly we may say that the generations of today differ among themselves in life style, habits, motivation, attitude towards work, family and the prevailing psychopathology that they are faced with. Some theorists claim that the prevailing psychopathology has reflected deep developmental disorders since the late 1980s and 1990s.

One of the relevant differences between the younger and the older generation that brings up problems in mutual understanding is the use of language and the way of communication. Slang being the ever changing system of colloquial words and expressions used by an individual, creates and strengthens his/her social identity and cohesion within a group or rather creates the link between an individual and the trend in a broader community. Every generation fights to create their own identity and it is precisely through constant changes and processing of slang that is unique for a particular generation, that the gap is created and it makes mutual understanding of individuals belonging to different generations much harder. The smart phones that enable sending instant SMS, e-mails and similar, give younger generations the possibility to create their own innovative and very private written language. The type of slang and jargon leaves those who are not skilled in using technological devices, out of the communication circle. The use of new technologies that enable distant communication has been taken for granted by young people, it is a part of their reality. While they were born into the world of internet and smart phones, the older people need to learn how to use new technologies if they want to keep up with time.

The next area where comparison between generations is done is the area of beliefs and values. In their research, Twenge, Campbell and Freeman (2012), find out that the generations X and Y are much more oriented towards extrinsic values (such as money, image, fame) than the generation of Baby Boomers, while the intrinsic values (such as selfacceptance, belonging, community) are less relevant to them. The care for other people is on the decrease from generation X onwards. The Millennials are less keen on cooperating in collective or individual changes unless these are not directly linked with their interests, e.g., they express less care for the environment. They are more directed towards pragmatic life goals, they more often seek direct benefits in the things that they do and find it more difficult to see the meaning and purpose of their life.

These findings may partly explain the increase in mental health issues and disorders such as anxiety, depression and worse mental health in general, from one generation into another. The orientation towards extrinsic values and its predominance over intrinsic values correlates with distress and worse psychological well-being (Kasser and Ryan 1996, in Twenge, Campbell and Freman, 2012). This addresses the question whether this trend will turn with generation Z that has experienced recession in childhood, similarly to a generation that experienced depression. Some believe that this will lead the members of this generation into greater conformism and economy, others believe that economic instability leads to greater materialism.

A compelling research by Curran and Hill (2017) is focused on the intergenerational differences in perfectionism. The author stems from the model of multidimensional perfectionism by Hewitt & Flett (1991 in Curran and Hill, 2017) in which perfectionism is seen as directed towards perfectionist beliefs and behaviour and distinguishes three types of perfectionism:

• self-oriented perfectionism, shown in an individual’s irrational need to be perfect, in unrealistic expectations towards his/her self and strict criteria of self-evaluation.
• Socially prescribed perfectionism in which the demands for perfection come from the outside and are extremely high. In this case the other people are seen as cruel judges and an individual needs to show perfection to preserve their approval.
• Other-oriented perfectionism in which the demands and expectations of perfection are directed towards others. An individual sets unrealistic standards to other people and is excessively critical towards them.

Hill argues that all three dimensions of perfectionism have been on the rise in the last three decades. One of the possible explanations may be that the Western culture is getting more and more individualistic, materialistic and socially antagonistic. Young people live in a highly competitive environment, they are faced with more unrealistic expectations and have more anxious and controlling parents.

The cultural norms alongside the direct social environment (family) contribute to the development of perfectionism in individuals. Curran & Hill (2017) have identified three interlaced cultural changes that help us to understand young people in experiencing themselves and their identity that goes along with the process that is relevant for the development of perfectionism. These changes are as follows:

• The emergence of neoliberalism and competitive individualism;
• The rise of the doctrine of meritocracy;
• The controlling upbringing of parents and the anxiety linked with children’s upbringing.

Beside the generational changes and generational characteristics that need to be understood in the whole context of an individual’s personality, we are also witnessing demographic changes that have an impact on the structure of society. The expected lifetime is getting longer and longer in the developed and developing world. People live longer and are more healthy, they are active for a longer period time in their professional life and life after retirement is getting longer. The experts state that the population of older people (60 years of age and more) will be tripled by 2050.

According to some estimates there will be 2 billions of older people in 2050 (Kinsella and Velkoff, 2001 in Laidlaw and Baikie, 2007). All this brings about new challenges for psychotherapists, because older people will more often seek psychotherapeutic assistance in order to preserve their personality growth as well as to confront ageing and psychophysical and social changes that come with it, more effectively (Ladlaw and Pachana, 2009).

The education and training of psychotherapists, not only in the area of developmental psychology, psychopathology, but also in gerontology, sociology, anthrophology and related sciences is getting more and more urgent if we wish to adequately respond to the needs of the diverse population of our clients.

References

Anderlič, J. Generacija X in Y v organizacijah (diplomsko delo, Fakulteta za družbene vede). Online: http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/diplomska/pdfs/anderlic-jasna.pdf.

Bangerter, A. (2005) Entitativity of Generations, Age Groups and Cohorts as Perceived by Young Adults. Swiss journal of Psychology (64), 2005, 273-280.

Curran, T. & Hill, A. P. Perfectionism Is Increasing Over Time: A Meta-Analysis of Birth

Cohort Differences From 1989 to 2016. American Psychological Association, 2017.

Online: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000138.pdf.

Gržina, S. & Nastran Ule, M. (1996) Mladina v devetdesetih. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in publicistično središče: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport RS, Urad za mladino.

Laidlaw, K., Baikie, E. (2009) Psychotherapy and Demographic Change. Nordic Psychology, (59;1), 45-58.

Laidlaw, K., Pachana, N.A. (2009) Aging, Mental Health, and Demographic Change: Challanges for Psychotherapists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (41; 6), 601-608.

Lazar, A., Litvak-Hirsch, T. & Chaitin, J. (2008) Between Culture and Family: Jewish-Israeli Adults´ Relation to the Holocaust as a Cultural Trauma. Traumatology (13; 4), 93-102.

Pollak, M. (1990) The Legacy of Holocaust: Psychohistorical themes in the Second Generation, by Robert M. Prince (review). Psychoanalyitic Psychology (7; 3), 445-449.

Reeves, T. C. & Oh, E. (2014) Generational Differences. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merriënboer, M. P. Driscoll (ed.), (2014) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (p.295-303), Taylor and Francis Group.

Weiss, D. & Lang, F. R. (2012) The Two faces of Age Identity. GeroPsych, (25), 5-14.

Weiss, D. & Lang, F. R. (2009) Thinking About My Generation: Adaptive Effect of a Dual Age Identity in Later Adulthood. Psychology and Aging (24; 3), 729-734.

Weiss, D. (2014) What Will Remain When We Are Gone? Finitude and Generation Identity in the Second Half of Life. Psychology and Aging (29; 3), 554-562.

Törőcsik, M., Szűcs, K. & Kehl, D. (2014) How Generations Think: Research on Generation Z. Acta Universittis Sapientiae, Communicatio, (1), 23-45.

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K. & Freman, E. C. (2012) Generational Differences in Young Adults´ Life Goals, Concern for Others, and Civic Orientation, 1966-200. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (102; 5), 1045-1062.

mag. Barbara Čibej Žagar, univ.dipl.psih.,
certificirana EuroPsy psihologinja, psihoterapevtka
barbara.cibejzagar@gmail.com