Review: Storm and Stress Redux

Reviewed Work(s): Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident,
Assertive, and Entitled: And More Miserable than Ever Before by Jean M. Twenge
Review by: Jeffrey Jensen Arnett
Source: The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Winter, 2008), pp. 675-682
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20445493
Accessed: 20-03-2019 16:36 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The American Journal of Psychology

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BOOK REVIEWS 675
Fisher, L. M. (2007, Summer). Ho
91.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind:
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new min
head.
Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius:
Surowiecki,J. (2004). The wisdom of
tive wisdom shapes business, econo
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (200
New York: Portfolio.

Storm and Stress

Generation Me: Why Today

Assertive, and Entitled-a
ByJean M. Twenge. New York
Complaining about the young
young was a state akin to being
as drunken men by wine." In
an old man grumbling, "I wish
twenty, or that youth would s
fighting, stealing, wronging t
In psychology, too, from th
a source of problems. G. Stanl
1904, was the foundation for t
marvelously diverse and in man
in the century since they have
is inherently a time of "storm
from 14 to 24 are the years wh
Hall's assertion of adolescent
universal and has an evolution
scholars, beginning with Ma
1920s. Daniel Offer's landmar
adolescents get along quite we
the time, and do not routinely
fer, 1969). More recently, a p
looking at the sunny side of
be little doubt that research o
problems: conflict with paren
risky sexual behavior.
In popular media as well, the
unruly, constantly threatening
the first distinct youth culture
female "flappers" provoked ala
In the 1950s came rock and rol
madejazz look tame and was por

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 676 AMERICANJOURNAL OFPSYCHOLOGY WINTER 2008
tractive and highly dangerous to youthful morals. In the 1960s youth culture reached
a boiling point with the antiwar movement, the sexual revolution, and various other
youthful protests against the way adults run the world. Popular media feverishly
documented the excesses of the most extreme members of the youth culture and
pondered what had gone awry in the development of the young generation.
Youth culture today looks tame next to the 1960s, but media portrayals of the
young remain predominantly negative. The zenith of this negative coverage-or
perhaps nadiris a more appropriate word-was a 2005 Time magazine cover story
on the young people of today. "TheyJust Won't Grow Up," declared the magazine
cover. The cover photo was of a young man in his early 20s sitting in a sandbox.
His apparent crime, and the crime of the majority of his age-mates, was to wait
until at least his late 20s before settling into the commitments of adult life, such
as marriage, parenthood, and stable full-time work.
The latest entry into this tradition of youth bashing isJean M. Twenge's Genera
tion Me: Why Today 's YoungAmericans Are More Confident, Assertive, and Entitled-and
More Miserable Than Ever Before.
There are certainly some strengths in this book. Twenge is a lucid writer with a
gift for acerbic humor. Too much of the writing in academic psychology is boring
and turgid and manages to deaden even the most fascinating topics, but Twenge's
writing is consistently lively and fresh. She applies her razor wit especially to the
self-esteem movement, with great effect. The most compelling parts of the book
are the parts where she is analyzing and deflating the argument that self-esteem
should be promoted among children, the higher the better. This has done before
with more careful and extensive evidence, for example by William Damon (1986),
but rarely has it been done with such verve.
Nevertheless, the book also falls short in a variety of respects, including its
generational framework, its use of research evidence intermixed with highly dubi
ous material from popular culture, and its main argument that young Americans
today are "more confident, assertive, and entitled-and more miserable than ever
before." I will examine each of these problems here.

Generational misconceptions
A basic question about Twenge's approach is whether the phenomena she de
scribes in her book can usefully be conceptualized as generational. Here is how
she describes her conception:
This book focuses on the current generation of young people, born in the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s, whom I call Generation Me. Right now in the 2000s, this group
ranges from elementary school kids to thirty-something adults. Although thirty years
is a longer-than-average span for a generation, it nicely captures the group of people
who grew up in an era when focusing on yourself was not just tolerated but actively
encouraged. (pp. 3-4)

However, it is questionable whether people from "elementary school kids" begin

ning at about age 5 to "thirty-something adults" extending presumably to age 39
can be understood as a coherent group. A 5-year-old is vastly different develop
mentally from a 39-year-old. Furthermore, it has been 34 years since the 39-year-old
was age 5, and as Twenge herself shows repeatedly in the book, much has changed
in American society since the early 1970s.

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BOOK REVIEWS 677
More importantly, in order fo
have an end as well as a beginni
social scientists typically use to
it could be as little as 34 years on
from their peers who are 4 ye
generation. Yet as Twenge herse
raising their children guided b
held in raising them, so there is
Me" is about to be succeeded b
The generational framework
describing what life is like for y
true that American society has
tury. This has been observed m
and his colleagues (1985) in Habi
generational, taking place among
end, but a long-term and contin
In addition to the problems w
the term "Generation Me" is re
contempt and ridicule? Tweng
the label Generation Me? Since
ourselves first.... GenMe is no
protests that the term is not
saying that young people are
(p. 5). Yet these protests ring h
tory and little doubt that Twen
Thus "Generation Me"joins a g
young people, along with "adu
my view this ridicule reflects
rapid social changes that have t
half-century. Increases in the
have been so steep that many
settle down and "grow up" by
did, and are perplexed and uns
ing until at least their late 20s
in love and work.
I have proposed that these cha
course, so that there is now a
adolescence and young adultho
late 20s, during which young
life paths in love and work an
(Arnett, 2000, 2004, 2006). Em
is the period of the life cours
roles and social control, but th
while they are exploring possi
hood framework is a more frui
industrialized societies than "G
Since I proposed the outline of
term has become widely used

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 678 AMERICANJOURNAL OFPSYCHOLOGY, WINTER 2008
Conflating social science and popular media
A second serious problem with the book is the way Twenge uses evidence from
the social sciences and "evidence" from popular media interchangeably, which
often results in a sensationalized and distorted portrayal of young people. Much
of the social science research she presents is quite enlightening. This includes her
own research, which focuses on meta-analyses of long-term patterns of change in
American society on characteristics such as self-esteem, sexual attitudes, and gender
expectations. For example, she shows that by the mid-1990s, the average college man
had higher self-esteem than 86% of college men in 1968, and the average college
woman had higher self-esteem than 71% of college women in 1968.
Unfortunately, the credibility of the research she presents is undermined by the
way she draws uncritically from claims and sensational stories found in popular
media. For example, in discussing the alleged growing materialism among the
young she claims that among college students "the new trend is designer dorm
rooms with coordinated bedding and new couches" (p. 100). The only evidence
for this "trend" is a Time magazine article. In another place, she asserts that the
alleged rise in loneliness and isolation among the young "helps explain a new
kind of get-together that's popping up in cities around the country: cuddle parties.
It's a deliberately non-sexual (though usually co-ed) gathering where pajama-clad
people can enjoy the hugs and touch of others, overseen by a 'cuddle lifeguard on
duty' who keeps things friendly and nonthreatening" (p. 110). The only source for
the claim that such events are "popping up" anywhere at all is a People magazine
article. These are just two examples among many that litter the book.
Twenge's frequent use of the detritus of popular media is puzzling. As an ac
complished methodologist she surely understands the standards of validity in
the social sciences and the reasons for them. Social scientists adhere to common
standards of validity-and peer review-precisely to avoid the kind of misleading,
distorting, and false stories presented routinely in popular media, where the main
standard is what sells best. Why she would choose to conflate her potentially valu
able analyses with tripe from popular media is mystifying. Perhaps this was done
to make the book more eye-catching and digestible for a nonacademic audience,
but it was done at the expense of the book's academic credibility.
Not only are the stories she presents from popular media of highly questionable
validity, but they are often presented at the expense of existing research evidence
on the topics she discusses. For example, in chapter 6, "Sex: Generation Prude
Meets Generation Crude," she repeatedly presents anecdotes from popular sources
such as an NBC special on teens and sex, newspaper articles, television shows such
as The 0. C., and something called The Hookup Handbook. The result is a portrayal
of American adolescents as ripe and ready for sex with pretty much anyone at any
time. The studies Twenge presents show that actually less than half of adolescents
and emerging adults approve of or take part in recreational sex, yet never in the
entire chapter do we hear from those who are among the majority. Furthermore,
she claims, with only anecdotal support, that this recreational attitude toward sex is
similar for girls and boys. "Not so long ago, a high school girl with a 'reputation' was
a bad thing-now it's a good thing" (p. 170). Yet this ignores abundant evidence that
adolescent girls are often highly ambivalent about sexuality, especially about recre
ational sex (Graber, Brooks-Gunn, & Galen, 1999). It also fails to recognize that the

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BOOK REVIEWS 679
sexual double standard remains
boys and young men than for

Are they really "more mis

What about Twenge's thesis t
assertive, and entitled-and mor
thesis is easy enough to accept.
society has become much more
to expect that there has been a
traits that reflect individualism
analyses show rises in recent de
people today feel "more entitl
Twenge claims to show a rise
more like confidence than nar
be willing to describe myself a
evidence is reasonably strong
their lives, so in that sense per
More problematic is Twenge's
than ever before." On the face o
of the thesis. How could they
and "more miserable than ev
and traits? Twenge never addr
presents that they are "more m
the incidence of major depres
is lifetime rate of major depr
evidence from her meta-analys
increased since the 1950s, but
feels more stressful to people o
evidence that young people f
health care, and elusive child
anywhere else to result in an
adults. On the contrary, the o
their prospects in life is remar
Twenge's thesis, about the str
to their futures. Furthermore
by the national Monitoring the
ing emerging adulthood-direc
for emerging adults once they
employment, housing, and he
One other problem with Twe
reliance on data from college
derstandable, and quite forgiva
25-year-old age period are fou
decades. However, it is less fo
the limitations of the data. Eve
high, only about one fourth o
sities of the kind that are the
(Hamilton & Hamilton, 2006),

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 680 AMERICANJOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, WINTER 2008
smaller, especially for women. Twenge often mentions that her analyses included
thousands or even tens of thousands of people, but this is unlikely to persuade
anyone who knows anything about research methodology. An unrepresentative
sample in the thousands is still an unrepresentative sample.
In theory and research on emerging adulthood, it has been emphasized from
the beginning that 18- to 25-year-olds are highly heterogeneous and that hetero
geneity may be higher in many respects in this age period than in any other age
period because of the lack of institutional structure and social control in these
years (Arnett, 2000, 2004, 2006). Furthermore, the lives of emerging adults vary
greatly depending on their social class background, educational attainment, and
ethnicity, even as they share some common characteristics (Cote, 2006; Hamilton
& Hamilton, 2006). Yet heterogeneity in terms of social class and educational at
tainment is hardly ever mentioned by Twenge, and there is almost no mention of
ethnicity until the penultimate chapter of the book. It is perhaps the best chapter
of the book, but it is less about the lives of young people in ethnic minorities than
about the majority's increasing tolerant views of minorities. Twenge's generational
framework discourages recognition of the heterogeneity of the young because
the more diverse they are, the more her assumptions of generational coherence
become difficult to accept.

Conclusion
In sum, Generation Me contains elements of interest, but ultimately it is a disap
pointing book. It is doubtful that the world is in need of another storm-and-stress
caricature of youth and another derisive term for the young. Twenge is right that the
individualism of young people today is partly a consequence of growing individual
ism in American society in recent decades. However, the individualism of emerging
adults is mostly a consequence of the fact that the age period from the late teens
through at least the mid-20s has become a highly individualistic time of life, when
young people are freer from social roles and institutional frameworks than at any
other time of life. Their individualism reflects the appearance of a new phase of the
life course, emerging adulthood, not a transient generational change. Furthermore,
most emerging adults relinquish their self-focused individualism by age 30 for the
restrictions and rewards of adult roles: stable work, marriage, and parenthood.
There is much to be studied about the lives of emerging adults now that they
are increasingly understood to be neither adolescents nor young adults. Although
Generation Meis deeply flawed, this is Twenge's first book, and there is enough in it
that is good to make the reader hopeful that her next book will make a substantial
contribution to the understanding of emerging adults, if only she can keep the
wit, drop the fluff, and add more gravitas.

Response to Twenge
Twenge's review of my book Emerging Adulthood appears in the same issue of
The American Journal of Psychology as my review of her book. Most of her review is
devoted to a response to my review. There is much to object to in her defense of
her book, but I will limit myself to these four points:

"It was never my intention that the book be seen as a condemnation of the genera
tion." This statement is hard to believe. Did Twenge really not see-does she still not

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS 681
see-that "Generation Me" is a deroga
a term of abuse? Furthermore, the b
emerging adults. They lack "basic con
can't take criticism" (p. 64), they "pu
less [they] earn heaps of money" (p.
snide, derogatory portrait of the you
refuses to take responsibility for it.
"It is ironic that Arnett would criticize
examples, as EmergingAdulthood is enri
I occasionally use cartoons and examp
EmergingAdulthood. However, Twenge
mine. What I did not do in my book,
detritus of popular culture as the bas
my review, and readers of Generation
"It is also odd that Arnett would say
ality Inventory (NPI) seem like nor
supported by hundreds of studies sh
outcomes, from aggression after th
is that Twenge seems unaware of th
(predictive) validity. The fact that "
the NPI and negative characteristics i
Does it measure what it claims to me
to examine it closely and see for the
"As for my reliance on college student
the young population. However, they
likely to be its future leaders." But Tw
ture leaders" who are an "important s
sweeping generalizations and promote
To do so on the basis mainly of studie
who represent at most 20% of their a
acknowledge the limitations of this m

As described earlier, Twenge's b

great potential as a writer and soci
of the book are ultimately overw
Although Twenge bridles at the w
about the young, alas, that is wher
the lives of emerging adults today
have seen a decline in nearly ever
substance use to premarital pregna
ment of American emerging adul
found in Twenge's book and elsew
themselves with politics. Fortunate
is providing a much more balanced

JeffreyJensen Arnett
Clark University
950 Main St.
Worcester, MA 01610
E-mail: [email protected]

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 682 AMERICANJOURNAL OFPSYCHOLOGY, WINTER 2008
References
Arnett, J. J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54,
317-326.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Arnett,J.J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding roadfrom the late teens through the twenties.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Arnett,J.J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. InJ.
J. Arnett &J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century
(pp. 3-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the
heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.
Cote,J. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing nature of maturity and identity in the late modern
world. New York: New York University Press.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological
critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13-26.
Damon, W. (1986). Greater expectations. New York: Basic Books.
Graber,J. A., Brooks-Gunn,J., & Galen, B. R. (1999). Betwixt and between: Sexuality in the
context of adolescent transitions. In R. Jessor (Ed.), New perspectives on adolescent risk
behavior (pp. 270-318). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relation to physiology, anthropology, sociology,
sex, crime, religion, and education (Vols. 1 & 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hamilton, S., & Hamilton, M. A. (2006). School, work, and emerging adulthood. In J. J.
Arnett &J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Coming of age in the 21st century: The lives and contexts of
emerging adults. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Offer, D. (1969). The psychological world of the teenager. New York: Basic Books.

Excellent and Accessible View of Emerging Adulthood

Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road From the Late Teens Through
the Twenties
ByJeffreyJensen Arnett. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2006. 280 pp. Paper,
$19.95.
Not that long ago, adolescence was a brief period, often over by 18 to 21 years of
age. AsJeffreyJensen Arnett expertly demonstrates in Emerging Adulthood, that is
true no longer. Extended adolescence-or, in Arnett's preferred term, emerging
adulthood-can last until 30 or even later. Today's young people are more and
more likely to delay settling down into marriage, parenthood, and stable jobs.
EmergingAdulthood is the definitive book on this new stage of life. It relies primarily
on qualitative interview data with twentysomethings to describe relationships with
parents, love and sex, the increasingly long road through college,job-hopping, and
religious values. Arnett manages to hit the right tone throughout the book, seeing
the positives of this stage of self-exploration while still realizing that it is occasion
ally a time of delusions of grandeur. Arnett's original research on young people's
religious beliefs grounds what might be the book's strongest chapter. The phrases
"a congregation of one" and "make-your-own-religion" capture the growing trend
of individualized religion that undermines the efforts of traditional religions to re
tain young congregants. The survey data discussed in the book are also immensely

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.102 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:36:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms