How Much Can a Generation Really Tell Us About Someone?

By Heartscape Intern, Tan Hong Ting

"Gen Z are glued to their phones."

"Millennials are entitled."

"Boomers don't understand technology."

"Gen Alpha have no attention span."

Whether it's on social media, in conversations with friends, or even in the workplace, generational labels have become a common way to describe people. These labels often come with assumptions about personality, values, and behaviour, making it seem as though everyone born within a certain time period shares the same characteristics.

But how much can someone's generation actually tell us about who they are?

Why Do We Love Putting People Into Categories?

One reason lies in how our brains process information. We naturally group people into categories, a process called social categorization. Rather than remembering every individual's unique qualities, our brains create mental shortcuts that help us make sense of a complex social world (Tajfel & Turner, 2001).

Generational labels, such as Gen Z or Gen Alpha, are one example of these shortcuts. They can help us recognize that people who grow up during similar periods may share certain experiences. For instance, Gen Z largely grew up alongside smartphones and social media, while Gen Alpha is the first generation to be immersed in AI-powered technology from an early age.

These shared experiences can shape perspectives, habits, and values. But they are only one piece of the puzzle.

When Labels Become Stereotypes

The challenge begins when categories turn into stereotypes.

Once we associate a generation with certain traits, we may start believing that everyone in that group is essentially the same. This is referred to as the outgroup homogeneity bias, our tendency to see members of another group as more alike than they really are (Quattrone & Jones, 1980).

Think about statements like:

"All Boomers dislike change."

"Gen Z are lazy."

"Gen Alpha can't focus."

While these claims may sound familiar, they overlook the diversity that exists within every generation. After all, you've probably met people who don't fit the stereotype of their age group at all.

Why Do These Stereotypes Feel So Convincing?

Part of the answer lies in confirmation bias.

Once we believe a stereotype, we tend to notice examples that support it while paying less attention to examples that contradict it (Nickerson, 1998).

For example, if we believe that Gen Alpha has a short attention span, we might notice children quickly scrolling through videos online. But we may overlook the same children spending hours building intricate LEGO creations, mastering a musical instrument, or concentrating on activities they genuinely enjoy.

Our brains aren't intentionally trying to mislead us—they're simply looking for patterns that fit what we already expect.

Are Generations Really That Different?

The answer is: yes, but not always in the way we think.

Researchers distinguish between cohort effects and age effects.

A cohort effect refers to differences that arise because people grew up during a particular historical period. For example, growing up during the COVID-19 pandemic or in the age of social media may shape how a generation views relationships, work, or communication.

An age effect, on the other hand, reflects changes that happen simply because people are at different stages of life. Teenagers today may seem more impulsive or trend-driven, but many of these behaviours have characterized teenagers across generations.

This means that not every difference we observe is caused by someone's generation. Sometimes, it's simply a reflection of where they are in life (Ryder, 1985).

Looking Beyond The Label

Generational labels can be useful. They help us understand how major cultural, technological, and historical events shape people's experiences.

However, they become less helpful when we assume they tell us everything about a person.

Our personalities are influenced by far more than the year we were born. Family, culture, education, friendships, life experiences, and individual differences all contribute to who we become (McAdams & Olson, 2009).

So the next time you hear someone described as "such a Gen Z" or "such a Boomer," pause for a moment. Instead of assuming their behaviour is simply a product of their generation, try asking yourself:

• What experiences might have shaped the way they think or behave?

• Could there be other factors influencing this behaviour beyond their age or generation?

• Am I noticing this because it fits a stereotype I already believe?

• What might I learn about this person if I approached them with curiosity instead of assumptions?

These questions don't mean generational differences don't exist. Rather, they remind us that a generation can offer context, but it should never define an individual.

Perhaps the most meaningful conversations happen when we move beyond labels and become curious about the stories, experiences, and values that make each person unique. After all, while generations may shape us, they don't tell the whole story of who we are.

References

McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2009). Personality Development: continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 517–542. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100507

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141

Ryder, N.B. (1985). The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of Social Change. In: Mason, W.M., Fienberg, S.E. (eds) Cohort Analysis in Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8536-3_2 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 94–109). Psychology Press.