research on generation z

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Generation Z – also known as Gen Z, iGen or postmillennial – are a highly collaborative cohort that cares deeply about others and have a pragmatic attitude about how to address a set of inherited issues like climate change, according to research by Roberta Katz, a senior research scholar at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) .

Roberta Katz (Image credit: Charles Katz)

Since 2017, Katz, along with her co-authors, Sarah Ogilvie, a linguist at the University of Oxford and formerly at Stanford; Jane Shaw, a historian who is the principal of Harris Manchester College at Oxford and was previously dean for Religious Life at Stanford; and Linda Woodhead, a sociologist at King’s College London, collaborated as part of a multi-year CASBS research project to better understand a generation who, born between the mid-1990s to around 2010, grew up with digital tools always at their fingertips.

Their findings are based on some 120 interviews gathered on three college campuses – Stanford University; Foothill College, a community college in Los Altos Hills, California; and Lancaster University, a research university in Lancaster, England. A set of focus groups and two surveys in the U.S. and the U.K. were administered to a representative sample of over 2,000 adults aged between 18 and 25 years old.

Contributing further to the scholar’s understanding of Gen Z was the creation of the “ iGen corpus ,” a 70 million item digital repository of spoken and written language of people aged 16 to 25 years that included transcripts from the researchers’ interviews and focus groups, as well as public data from the social media platforms Twitter, Reddit, Twitch, 4chan and YouTube, as well as memes and copypastas from Facebook and Instagram. Ogilvie, the principal investigator on the corpus research team, along with a team of Stanford student research assistants, applied machine learning algorithms to discover the many ways in which young people today express themselves.

Taken together, the scholars’ research offers a snapshot of who Gen Zers really are, what matters to them and why. Findings from Katz’s and her co-authors’ research are detailed in a new book, Gen Z, Explained: The Art of Living in a Digital Age (University of Chicago Press, 2021).

Here, Katz discusses some of what she and her colleagues learned from their extensive research into how Gen Zers, the most diverse generation yet , experience and understand the world.

Based on your research, can you briefly describe the typical Gen Zer?

In summary, a typical Gen Zer is a self-driver who deeply cares about others, strives for a diverse community, is highly collaborative and social, values flexibility, relevance, authenticity and non-hierarchical leadership, and, while dismayed about inherited issues like climate change, has a pragmatic attitude about the work that has to be done to address those issues.

How has growing up in an internet-connected society shaped how Gen Zers see and experience the world and everyday life?

Internet-related technologies have dramatically changed the speed, scale and scope of human communications, resulting in significant changes in how people work, play, shop, find friends and learn about other people. For Gen Zers living in the United States and Britain (the two places we studied), the “norm” they experienced as children was a world that operated at speed, scale and scope. They developed an early facility with powerful digital tools that allowed them to be self-reliant as well as collaborative. Similarly, because they could learn about people and cultures around the globe from an early age, they developed a greater appreciation for diversity and the importance of finding their own unique identities.

What do people most misunderstand or get wrong about Gen Zers?

For quite a while, people were critical of what they saw as a generation that was too coddled and “soft.” Gen Zers were called “snowflakes” and “unwilling to grow up.” But much of that negative judgment came from a misunderstanding of what it is like to grow up in today’s world when compared with how their elders grew up. As an example, Gen Zers have been criticized as lazy because they don’t have after-school or summer jobs. But many Gen Zers have been earning significant dollars online through a variety of activities, even including product placements on fashion-advice sites. Another example concerns drivers’ licenses: older people, for whom getting a driver’s license was a rite of passage toward adulthood, have criticized Gen Zers who do not rush to take their driver’s tests when they turn 16, but this criticism fails to consider that Gen Zers have no need to drive when they have ready access to ride services like Uber and Lyft.

Do you think Gen Zers get an undeserved bad rap?

Yes, but that is changing. Of late, many people are beginning to appreciate the strength and pragmatism of Gen Zers.

What were you most surprised to learn about Gen Zers?

Our biggest surprise came in response to this interview question: “What type of communication do you like best?” We expected the interviewees to respond with their favorite type of digital communication – e.g., text, email, chat group, DM, FaceTime, Skype, etc. – but instead nearly every single person said their favorite form of communication was “in person.”

As Gen Zers enter the workforce, what would be helpful for other generations to know about their post-millennial colleagues?

For those who are now experiencing Gen Zers in the workplace, my advice is to recognize that these new colleagues are used to working collaboratively and flexibly, with an eye to being efficient in getting the job done. They are pragmatic and value direct communication, authenticity and relevance. They also value self-care. They may be more likely than older people were when they were the age of the Gen Zers to question rules and authority because they are so used to finding what they need on their own. They are not always right; often they don’t know what they need, especially in a new setting, and this is where inter-generational dialogue can be so helpful. Both the older and the younger colleagues can learn from the other, in each case by listening with more respect, appreciation and trust. The older colleague can learn some helpful new ways of getting a job done, while the younger colleague may learn good reasons for why things have long been done in a certain way. Without that dialogue, we’ll have a wasteful tug of war between the past and the future. The goal is for older and younger generations to work together, with openness and trust, to ensure that the wisdom – but not what has become the excess baggage – of the past is not lost to the future.

How has studying Gen Zers changed your own interactions with this generation?

I came to understand that Gen Zers are, on the whole, much better adapted to life in a digital age than those of us who are older and that they can be very frustrated by what appear to them to be outdated and often irrelevant ways of doing things. As one simple example that we cite in the book, an older person would likely assume that any organization needs a set of officers, for that has been the norm in their experience, but a Gen Zer would say, from their lived experience, that there is no need to elect officers (or other leaders) if the group can accomplish its mission through online collaborations that take advantage of the participants’ diverse skills.

In my own interactions with Gen Zers, I am much more likely than I used to be to listen closely to what they say, and to refrain from making a judgment about their ideas, values and behaviors based on an assumption that they are wrong and I am right. They often do things differently, have some different values and have some different ideas about the future than I do, and I have come to appreciate and trust that they often have a new and better approach. Many of us who are older have a different understanding of how the world works, which is rooted in our own early experiences, so it’s easy for us to assume that the world will continue to operate in much the same way going forward and that the young people need to adapt to that older way of living. But the younger people are necessarily future-oriented, and as we all are increasingly coming to appreciate, the digital-age future is quite different from the industrial-age past.

For 13 years, Katz served under Stanford University Presidents John Hennessy and Marc Tessier-Lavigne as the associate vice president for strategic planning. She also served as President Tessier-Lavigne’s interim chief of staff until early 2017. Katz has been deeply involved in the facilitation of a variety of interdisciplinary research initiatives at Stanford, and she is a current member of the CASBS board of directors.

This research was funded by the Knight Foundation.

REVIEW article

Generation z within the workforce and in the workplace: a bibliometric analysis.

• 1 Department of Applied Economics (Statistics and Econometrics), Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Malaga, Málaga, Spain
• 2 Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Malaga, Málaga, Spain
• 3 Department of Business Management, Faculty of Commerce and Management, University of Malaga, Málaga, Spain

This article aims to improve the knowledge on Generation Z as employees within workforce and in the workplace, as well as on the main thematic trends that drive the research on the topic. To this end, and using bibliometric techniques, a sample of 102 publications on this subject from Web of Science between 2009 and 2020 is analyzed. Research discusses the most published and most cited authors and journals to have a broad view of the context of the subject. Later, through a longitudinal view, the study mainly focuses on analyzing the evolution of thematic clusters, to assess the progress of the themes, as well as the network around the principal motor cluster of each period. The obtained results suggest a hardly developed topic, which started to draw attention in 2018, while still having a wide margin for growth. The core of research on the topic has evolved around “Generation-Z” “generations,” “workplace,” “management” and “attitudes,” “leadership,” “career,” or “learning-teaching-education,” although a low keyword stability among periods was noted. There is a need for further development on a variety of aspects regarding this generation and the labor market, as the study shows a clear orientation toward management and generational diversity within the workplace.

Introduction

A number of recent studies examine the characteristics of Generation Z (Gen Z) individuals (Gen Zers), their values ( Maloni et al., 2019 ; Cresnar and Nedelko, 2020 ), their attitudes toward work and organizations ( Barhate and Dirani, 2021 ), the way they adapt to the workplace ( Chillakuri, 2020 ), and even distinguishing intragenerational variants within this cohort ( Scholz, 2019 ; Leslie et al., 2021 ), as well as its similarities and differences with other generations ( Hernaus and Poloski Vokic, 2014 ; Klopotan et al., 2020 ; Mahmoud et al., 2021 ), but mostly with Generation Y ( Raslie and Ting, 2021 ). Given the need to adapt in the workplace not only for the latest generation, but for the cohesion and cooperation between generations, this adds extra difficulty to the human resources management (HRM), and to an efficient workflow and environment in the workplace.

The purpose of this article is to disclose the thematic research trends on the aforementioned topic, through a review of the existing literature on Gen Z as employees within the workforce and in the workplace. This article delivers a pioneering topic to which no research has specifically focused before. The contribution of this research will allow a further understanding and an increased knowledge on how Gen Z is related to the workforce and in the workplace. In addition, the study will create supporting material for future research, as well as helping the HRM to better address the needs of Gen Zers and bring higher value to the organization. Thus, a bibliometric assessment has been elaborated to highlight the number of publications, the most notorious authors, and the most impactful journals. Additionally, quantitative research was elaborated, a longitudinal analysis was developed, as well as a visualization of the data on the most relevant themes of research is disclosed for the different periods considered.

The contextualization of the study is described consequently, including the characteristics of Gen Z and their general expectations of jobs and employers, and the current trends and adaptation practices of HRM and organizations. The third part will be focused on the methods used for the bibliometric analysis, including the search strategy, sample, and software. Thereafter, the results of the analysis are stated on the activity related to the topic, the evolution of the keywords, a thematic longitudinal analysis, and eventually, a period-by-period strategic map analysis. It will discuss the implications, future research suggestions, and limitations of the paper, and finally, conclusions will be described.

Contextualization of the Study

Generation z.

Generation Z is the generation born from mid-1990s to early 2010s, where the exact dates vary depending on the chosen author, but most commonly is the 1995–2010. Gen Z is known to be the first true “digital native” generation ( Lanier, 2017 ), as they have been born and have been grown in a digital and technological environment, learning how to use technology, and interacting in social networks since the very young age, and even tend to be seen as addicted to technology. The members of this generation have also been called “Gen Zers,” “post-Millennials,” or “iGen” ( Magano et al., 2020 ).

As its main characteristics, Gen Zers are defined as highly ambitious and self-confident ( Pataki-Bittó and Kapusy, 2021 ). At the same time, they are said to be realistic and accept whatever is given ( Scholz, 2019 ). Gen Z is entrepreneurial ( Magano et al., 2020 ), even more than Generation Y ( Lanier, 2017 ). This generation seems to be motivated by finding their dream job and opportunities to expand their skills ( Magano et al., 2020 ), leading to believe they will switch jobs more frequently than other generations before them, and if they do not like something, they are ready to change immediately ( Csiszárik-Kocsír and Garia-Fodor, 2018 ). Other motivation drivers for this cohort are roots on advancement opportunities, increased salary, a meaningful work, and a good team ( PR Newswire, 2014 ; Csiszárik-Kocsír and Garia-Fodor, 2018 ).

When looking at how Gen Z is said to think and act, it is highlighted that they are not only more aware and informed about what is going on in the world than previous generations, but they have shown to be financially conscious ( Sladek and Grabinger, 2014 ). Moreover, their consumption is more ethical, and they have “greater freedom of expression and greater openness to understanding different kinds of people” ( Francis and Hoefel, 2018 , p. 2), having shown to be oriented to others ( Magano et al., 2020 ). This broad view of life gives Gen Z a unique perspective on understanding others, while trying to stay true to themselves, their values, and their goals.

While there is a prototype of this generation with mostly common characteristics and attitudes, among approximately 15 different age groups, it is evident that “one size does not fit all.” Moreover, the earliest works on Gen Z had been conducted almost only in the United States, leading to a biased perception of this generation ( Scholz, 2019 ). There exist supporting studies on intragenerational differences. These revealed how the visions, preferences, and features of Gen Zers vary by regions ( Scholz, 2019 ), or even by their workplace perceptions ( Leslie et al., 2021 ), depending on external situational factors such as events, crises, technology, or trends of their youth.

This generation cohort has been surrounded by a global financial crisis, times of terrorism, political uncertainty, and an almost irreversible climate crisis. At the same time, Gen Z has lived in an increasingly globalized world, with the ease of a same currency around the EU and free mobility through its member states in the case of Europe. All these factors have influenced how Gen Z has forged their personality, their vision, and has made them highly adaptable to the global world ( Magano et al., 2020 ).

It must be taken into account that part of Gen Z is already working, some are currently entering the workforce—more than what is expected because of the pandemic—and others are still on formation. Mainly, Gen Zers have started entering the labor market in the last years. Their introduction to the workforce has been challenging, being disturbed by a pandemic, its economic downturn, and its social and labor implications. There are only a couple of studies that address the impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on Gen Z in the labor market ( Sakdiyakorn et al., 2021 ), but the number of articles relating the pandemic and Gen Z is expected to increase when the real effects are known after the return of most of the employees to the workplace and once the pandemic has ended. These downturns have not prevented the cohort of having high expectations about their work ( Snieska et al., 2020 ), as well as having a well-defined career development plans ( Barhate and Dirani, 2021 ).

According to a Deloitte report ( O’Boyle et al., 2017 , p. 10), Gen Z, with eyes on the workplace, is expected to introduce high technology skills, while some researchers are not completely sure about their interpersonal communication and relationship skills. These researchers also found out that the majority of “Gen Z professionals prefer a multidisciplinary and global focus to their work.” Additionally, it is said that Gen Zers are affected by the belief that companies usually use and care about employees only when they are needed ( Scholz, 2019 ).

Generation Z is said to change jobs more frequently; thus, HR does not only have to worry about how to attract the new generation, but how to focus their efforts on giving Gen Zers what they need to stay in the company. Considering the scant research done in terms of what attracts Gen Zers toward companies, it is said that Gen Z is enticed by the work flexibility and a balance with their life outside the workplace. They seek direct contribution to the company, they desire to have an impact on the outcomes, they are driven by an entrepreneurial mindset, and an already established and known company is a plus ( Randstad Canada, 2014 ).

Furthermore, in terms of employee retention, there are some common aspects to this generation ( PR Newswire, 2014 ; Randstad Canada, 2014 ): they value honesty over anything else in their leaders, they prefer face-to-face communication with their superiors, they enjoy open dialog, as well as they have a strong desire to be listened to their ideas and to be valued for their opinions by their managers, and additionally, they expect social responsibility. Now the question is, are companies delivering these qualities to their employees? If not, why is it taking so long to adapt to the newest generation? Are firms considering organizational change to address the desires of the Gen Z?

Generation Z Within the Workforce and the Workplace

Throughout the years, the workforce has been evolving, and has been affected by multiple events, such as the Great Recession and more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, the workplace has developed new dynamics, from separated spaces according to the department, to current open spaces where different departments share resources and knowledge in a faster and more efficient way, or even the co-working spaces shared with other companies or independent professionals. The driving force that selects the employees of a firm and manages most workplace initiatives, procedures, and even the culture of the firm is the HRM. This specific part of the firm creates the essence of the company, attracts new talent for the firm, implements training, and intends to assure the most effective and efficient working environment to achieve the goals of the organization, among other functions.

To address the current situation on HR practices, Table 1 showcases Forbes’ annual Top 10 HR trends for 2020 ( Meister, 2020 ). In the year 2020, most trends move toward a better working environment, work-life balance, and skills. More and more firms are comprising resources to take care and to motivate their internal clients, their employees.

Table 1. Top HR talent attraction and retention trends 2020.

As the new generation enters the labor market, HRM needs to take into consideration, and adapt to the previously mentioned characteristics of this cohort. This does not only mean attracting the Gen Z employees in a different way and offer them a variety of work-related benefits to draw them to and keep them in the organization, but also to redefine entry-level jobs ( O’Boyle et al., 2017 ). There are only few research papers on how the labor market adapts to the needs and expectations of the Gen Z cohort, existing the need of further research. This may be because the majority of Gen Z individuals have been studying until lately and is only now starting to enter into the labor market.

Some articles studied the relationship between of employees, and companies or positions. The first one would be a person-organization fit model, so that the characteristics of the companies are congruent with the needs and wants of their employees ( Graczyk-Kucharska and Erickson, 2020 ). The second would be an employee-job fit, with the aim of attaining a job satisfaction, as well as the work engagement and performance ( Truxillo et al., 2012 ).

According to Bielen and Kubiczek (2020) , the most common way the businesses respond to the demands of Gen Zers are friendly working atmosphere, keeping up with the latest technologies, ambassador programs, internships, benefits, and corporate social responsibility activities. Similar ideas are reported by Randstad Canada (2014). However, to be able to do so, organizations need to have the courage to break traditional approaches by using the existing tools in different ways, accepting that even individuals from the same generation and their needs may differ from their cohort prototype ( O’Boyle et al., 2017 ), like what many firms have done with the on-line recruitment as their initial step ( Tato-Jimenez et al., 2019 ). Additionally, HR departments should be preparing to introduce or to change workplace values and culture among other aspects ( Graczyk-Kucharska and Erickson, 2020 ), rather than expecting Gen Z to adapt to the company.

Now that Gen Zers enter into the workforce, some organizations will have four or even five different generations working together. As Urick (2019 , p. 78) states, generational differences in the workplace can lead to “intergenerational biases, stereotypes, and misperceptions,” and create conflict situations. This said, it is safe to assure that different generational cohorts with their own work preferences should have distinguishing job characteristics ( Hernaus and Poloski Vokic, 2014 ). As previously done with Generation Y, companies need to modify their dynamics in order to manage the intergenerational diversity faced. To tackle these challenges, HRM has to explore new ways of satisfying the newcomers at the same time as trying not to neglect the employees of older generations, and learning how to manage multigenerational teams.

This article pretends to bring to light the research trends involving Gen Z, the workplace, and the professional relations of this generation. For this purpose, a bibliometric review has been elaborated by collecting data from the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (WoS), which has later been analyzed using the SciMAT open-source science mapping software tool.

Search Strategy

The documents collected for this review have been retrieved from the WoS database as of October 14, 2021. When conducting the search for the three variants of Gen Z keywords, as well as “workplace,” “workforce,” and “employee” were used within the topic field, creating the advanced search algorithm in WoS: TS = (“Generation Z” OR “Gen Z” OR “Z Generation”) AND TS = (“workforce*” OR “workplace*” OR “employee*”).

To obtain the widest range of results due to the early stages of research on Gen Z, all the years (1900–2020) and the languages were accounted for, and the document type was not limited, thus, including reviews and conference proceeding papers among others. Additionally, the citation indexes selected were as follows: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH), Book Citation Index– Science (BKCI-S), Book Citation Index– Social Sciences & Humanities (BKCI-SSH), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).

The search completed on WoS obtained a total of 102 results. The analysis covers a 12-year time period from 2009 to 2020, and even if the WoS search was conducted from 1900, Gen Z is a much more recent term. Hence, to develop a longitudinal analysis, the literature has been divided into three periods. The expanse of these periods and their segmentation has been defined following a quantitative criterion of the number of the documents published, trying to find the most homogeneous stages possible ( Table 2 ).

Table 2. Periods and documents per period.

The first stage covers documents from 2009 to 2017, the second corresponds with 2018, the third refers to 2019, and the last and fourth is 2020. Thus, considering the scant research until 2017 included, the first period has less manuscripts than the latter three, including only 19 publications in WoS from 2009 to 2017, from which five correspond to the last year of the stage. On the other hand, the 2018 period englobes a total of 22 papers, the third period, 2019, includes 32 articles, and, finally, 2020 addresses 29 registered documents in the database.

To be able to elaborate and to detangle the bibliometric analysis, SciMAT, an open-source science mapping software tool has been utilized. The reasons behind the decision to use this tool lie in the benefits it supplies the researcher. The SciMAT, created by Cobo et al. (2012) , offers methods, measures, and algorithms for the whole general science mapping workflow, for which researchers usually need to apply various software tools. On this note, the SciMAT software allows the pre-processing of the data retrieved from WoS, Scopus, PubMed, or similar, for a posterior network extraction, the application of different normalization measures, mapping, and analysis, and the graphical visualization of the results ( Cobo et al., 2012 ). The wizard analysis of the software allows to see a longitudinal map, which is one of the principal objectives of this article, as well as strategic maps and thematic networks.

Within the longitudinal view, the evolution map ( Figure 1A , left) shows on columns the different periods of the sample, showing the most relevant in clusters. These clusters are connected throughout the periods by lines, which represent the timely evolution of the themes. If two clusters are linked by a continuous line, these share the main item; but, if between two clusters, there is a discontinuous link meaning that they share elements but not the main item. Some may not be connected by lines, and in that case and if not appearing in the next period, the cluster has disappeared; if it suddenly appeared in a later period, the cluster is considered a new one. The size of each cluster depends on the selected performance measures. In the case of our study, we are considering the number of documents, the number of citations and the average citations, as well as the h-index, all with respect to the period and cluster chosen.

Figure 1. Evolution view and period view. Source: Cobo et al. (2012) .

Additionally, an overlapping map ( Figure 1B , right) represents the periods, and the number of keywords, in our case, each period is associated to. The upper outgoing arrow represents the keywords that have disappeared from one period to the next one, and the upper incoming arrows indicate the keywords added to the new period. The arrows connecting the periods offer the number of keywords shared among them, including the Stability Index between them.

The period view allows the user to decide which period is shown in the strategic diagram, and to choose the theme displayed in the cluster’s network. The SciMAT software wizard provides by defect the Callon’s density ( Callon et al., 1991 ) and centrality measures. A strategic map ( Figure 1C , left) showcases the most important themes of a given period, distributes in the figure according to their density and centrality ranges. This two-dimensional map divides the clusters into the following: motor clusters, being the ones with highest density and centrality; highly developed and isolated clusters or peripheral themes, with high density but low centrality; basic and transversal clusters when they have a high centrality but a low density; and emerging or declining clusters with both low density and centrality. For each cluster represented in the strategic map, a cluster network ( Figure 1D , right) is provided with the related themes.

The WoS sample was composed by 102 documents published between 2009 and 2020 ( Figure 2 ). It can be noticed that there are two distinct trends according to the rate of annual publications. In the time frame from 2009 to 2017, there is little research on Gen Z per se , and even less on their preparation, perceptions, and implications on the labor market, possibly because Gen Zers were mostly 22 years old and only a minority was working, while most of them were studying and other were just being born in 2009 and 2010. A second trend can be appreciated since 2018, from which Gen Z has been gaining relevance in research, as not only this generation starts working, but begins to have a perfect age for investigators to get an insight about their characteristics, preferences, values, and attitudes.

Figure 2. Number of publication per year. Source: Own elaboration from SciMAT data.

The 102 documents forming the analysis sample were written by a total of 234 published authors. From these authors, only Goh stands out from the rest, having written four articles. The low number of works on the topic is accompanied by the scarce research on Gen Z and the workforce, as well as the workplace of each author.

The most cited article is the work of Goh. It focuses on the hospitality sector and on Gen Z based on the theory of the planned behavior ( Goh and Kong, 2018 ; Goh and Lee, 2018 ). Besides, the Gen Z motivations of the employees in the hospitality industry toward the food waste ( Goh and Jie, 2019 ), the talent management and the recruitment strategies ( Goh and Okumus, 2020 ) are the next more cited articles. The rest of authors have been involved in 1 or 2 papers each, suggesting that this topic is not their main line of research. We can also highlight the citations received in WoS by each analyzed author. Displayed in Table 3 are the authors with more than 20 citations.

Table 3. Authors with more than 20 citations ordered by authors.

It can be seen how Goh has paved the way again with 92 citations from his three articles, each with the collaboration of one other author: Lee, Okumus, and Kong, were all included in Table 3 . Within the publications of Goh, A workforce to be reckoned with: The emerging pivotal Generation Z hospitality workforce ( Goh and Lee, 2018 ) is worth mentioning, as the article has received a significant number of citations within WoS, making Lee the second most cited author. Additionally, Bejtkovsky (2013 , 2016) has contributed on two documents, dated in 2013 and 2016. However, 17 received citations corresponds only to one of his articles, The Employees of Baby Boomers Generation, Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z in Selected Czech Corporations as Conceivers of Development and Competitiveness in their Corporation ( Bejtkovsky, 2016 ), which was dedicated to multiple generations within the workplace, generation gaps, and human resources.

The rest of the authors on the list have only one paper each, but as observed, have higher citations (more than 20 citations) than most top writers on our sample Table 3 . Both Ozkan and Solmaz (2015) have received the third best citation number on their participation in the 4th World Conference On Business, Economics, And Management with The Changing Face of the Employees— Generation Z and Their Perceptions of Work (A Study Applied to University Students) . Apart from the abovementioned authors, Schroth wrote about the readiness of the workplace to receive Gen Z ( Schroth, 2019 ), while both Lazanyi and Bilan (2017) collaborated to create an article on the trust of Gen Zers toward others within the workplace.

Additionally, the whole 102 document sample is associated with 91 journals. Table 4 shows the most influential journals according to the 2020 journal impact factor (JIF) provided in WoS, the corresponding quartile on the Journal Citation Report (JCR), the number of documents published on the topic, and the number of citations. Table 4 only includes those journals with more than 20 citations. The JIF is the ratio obtained by dividing the number of citations of a journal on the previous two years by the number of articles published by the journal over the same time period. In the case of this study, the 2019 JIF has been used, being the number of citations of the specific journal in 2018 and 2017 divided by the total of the published documents in it.

Table 4. Journals with most impact.

Concerning the WoS categories, the three most frequent category is Management ; followed by Hospitality and Tourism, Business , and Economics . During the analyzed period (2009–2020) there are 15 different management journals, five hospitality and tourism journals, and four business and economics. The journals with major impact—considering the articles with more than 20 citations—are the International Journal of Hospitality Management , the California Management Review , the Journal of Competitiveness , and the Tourism and Management Perspectives . Only the former journal is in the first quartile and has a JIF that is remarkably higher than the rest.

However, in general terms, the highest number of articles concerning this theme (5) have been published by the journal Sustainability in the years 2018 (JIF 2.592), 2019 (JIF 2.576), and 2020 (JIF 3.251). This was followed by the Journal of Competitiveness in the year 2016 (JIF 3.649), and International Journal of Hospitality Management (2) in the years 2018 (4.465) and 2019 (JIF 6.701).

Evolution of Keywords

Now, the evolution of the keywords along the different periods will be addressed ( Figure 3 ). The first period (2009–2017), although aggregating an eight-year time period, is characterized by a lower number of keywords than the rest of periods, which actually have a very similar amount. In the first period, there were 33 keywords, from which, nine were no longer used in the following ones. More than half of the words used (0.5) in this period were also transferred to the second one. For the second period, 15 additional words were introduced, summing up to 39 total keywords. Again, eight keywords disappeared and 31 transitioned to the next period, representing almost three fourths (0.61) of the total word count in 2019, being higher than the common keyword proportion of the change from period 1 to period 2. In the third period, 12 keywords were included in the topic research, adding up to 43 total keywords. Then, 32 keywords were included in the last period and 11 keywords were lost and will not be used in the following period. In the last period 13 words were included in the research of the topic, totaling of 45 keywords. The difference between the number of keywords between the first and the last periods is relatively low but can be justified by the scarce research on the topic. These results suggest that there is a wide development margin in the literature relating to Gen Z within the workforce and the workplace.

Figure 3. Keywords between periods. Source: Own elaboration with SciMAT.

Longitudinal Analysis

By means of the longitudinal diagram ( Figure 4 ) provided by SciMAT, the current evolution of the research related to the topic of this article will be analyzed. Some clusters have been maintained during two periods or have disappeared and then reappeared in a later period. It should be reminded, that each cluster was selected to have a maximum of 10 items and a minimum of 2.

Figure 4. Theme evolution of primary documents. Source: Elaborated with SciMAT.

With eyes on the first period, from 2009 to 2017, it can be seen how there are only four clusters: “Generation-Z,” “management,” “attitudes,” and “leadership.” The reason for the scarce number of clusters in this period is due to two facts: the keywords of the sample are focused on those concrete clusters—there is a larger number of keywords, but were not grouped in clusters due to the minimum requisite of two items and there is a small number of publications. For our study, clustering through an algorithm of the simple center with a minimum network size of 2 is important, because otherwise there would be an excessively large number of clusters. This is due to the high number of keywords of different thematic, as the research on this area was not developed enough during this period.

For the second period, year 2018, there are six clusters: “Generation-Z,” “Generation-Y,” “career,” “consumers,” “teams,” and “organizational.” The “Generation-Z” cluster is the only one maintained from the 2009–2017 period, gaining relevance within the research made during 2018 because it is placed in a better location in the strategic diagram, with higher centrality and density values, being the motor theme of this period. This was materialized in articles such as “ A workforce to be reckoned with: The emerging pivotal Generation Z hospitality workforce ” ( Goh and Lee, 2018 ), or “ Generation Z’s Sustainable Volunteering: Motivations, Attitudes and Job Performance ” ( Cho et al., 2018 ). The “Generation-Y” cluster has a linkage with the previous “management” and “leadership” clusters. Additionally, the leadership cluster (2018) has also a strong and direct relationship with the cluster “teams” from the first period. The “career” cluster is the most relevant by grouping documents based on the number of citations. However, since the density and the centrality of the career do not have a defined role in this theme yet, its evolution in the following periods remains uncertain.

In the 2019 period all the clusters are new. Outstanding for the number of citations are “outcomes,” followed by “Theory of planned behavior,” which is connected to the previous period through “career.” Likewise, “generations” is directly related to the “Generation-Z” cluster. An example of how the intergenerational view gains strength is the article Critical elements for multigenerational teams: a systematic review ( Burton et al., 2019 ). Other clusters in this period are “learning-teaching-education” and “personality” which has a linkage with the second period cluster “career.”

In the 2020 period, various clusters from the previous period are consolidated. The case of “generations,” “learning-peaching-education” or “outcomes” have a very strong linkage with the same clusters of the previous period. “Organizational change” is the weakest cluster. While “workplace” appears strongly as it is placed as the driving theme of the last period and has a direct linkage with the most important clusters of the rest of the periods. The article entitled Understanding Future Leaders: How Are Personal Values of Generations Y and Z Tailored to Leadership in Industry 4.0? ( Cresnar and Nedelko, 2020 ) is an example.

Following the analysis of the longitudinal diagram and considering the aforementioned remarks on the evolution of the words, a quantitative comparison has been elaborated from the data provided by SciMAT. Table 5 shows the clusters of each period of the sample, the centrality and density of each, as well as the number of documents, the number of citations, and the average citations within the theme, ending with the h-index provided by SciMAT. Within the first period (2009–2017), the cluster “Generation-Z” needs to be highlighted due to its high impact in terms of number of citations (171 citations), as well as the documents published (13 documents). Accordingly, “attitudes” stands out as the cluster with the highest average number of citations (15 citations) achieved with a single document. Also, “management” is one of the clusters with less centrality than “Generation-Z” but has a higher density, and, therefore, has a prominent position among the driving themes of this period ( Table 5 ).

Table 5. Quantitative factors of the themes and their evolution.

When considering the second period (2018), “career” is the highlighted cluster of the year. Similarly, to “Generation-Z” in the first period, this cluster manages to draw the attention for the highest number of citations (105 citations), being the higher on average citations (26.25 cites). The second with most cited in this period is “Generation-Z” with 73 citations. Also, “Generation-y” has 23 citations and an average citation of 3.29 per article. The cluster “teams” with only one published article involves a relevant impact as it reaches 14 citations in comparison with clusters of “innovations” and “consumers” with two and cero citations, respectively.

The third period (2019) concentrates the clusters of current trends. Nowadays, the most researched themes are, in descending order of citations: “outcomes” with 43 citations, “theory of planned behavior” with 38 citations, “generations” with 33 citations, “learning-teaching-education” with 15 citations, and “personality” cluster has no citation.

The fourth and last period (2020) is a continuation of the previous period in terms of clusters highlighted by number of citations. “Generations” and “learning-teaching-education” stood out by the cited papers, with 38 and 22 citations, respectively, followed by “workplace” with eight citations. Although this last cluster has a lower number of citations, it should be noted that only four articles have been cited, so the average number of citations is very close to the first two clusters.

From a general perspective, there are some observations to consider. (a) The clusters created in the first period (“Generation-Z,” “management,” “attitudes,” and “leadership”) have served as a base for the research of the forthcoming years, have been a major impact, particularly “Generation-Z” as they have transitioned to another period. (b) The number of total documents of the clusters seem to increase with time. (c) Notably, the clusters with most impact during the whole timeframe of the analysis, which are from higher to lower number of citations, are as follows: “Generation-Z” (171 citations), “career” (105 citations), “outcomes” (43 citations), and “generations” (38 citations).

Period-by-Period Strategy Map Analysis

Once the longitudinal map has been explained, and the evolution of the clusters is known, the paper will proceed analyzing the importance of each cluster in terms of Callon’s density and centrality measures through a strategic map, which values are represented and already mentioned in Table 5 . Centrality measure of Callon represents the interaction among networks, whereas the density measure indicates the internal strength of the network. After the analysis of a strategic diagram of the period, the main cluster in the motor themes is addressed, meaning, the theme that has the highest combination of density and centrality is the one cluster that is in the most upper-right position in the map. The analysis of the network surrounding the motor theme of each period is then explained.

First Period 2009–2017

The strategic map ( Figure 5 ) visually shows how the clusters of the 2009–2017 period are scattered according to their density and centrality measures (previous Table 5 ). The cluster “Generation-Z” is a relevant cluster which, although has the higher number of articles, the early stages of the topic in this period makes its average citation lower than would be expected. “Generation-Z” stands with a centrality of 103.69 and a density of 52.48. On this note, “Generation-Z” is an important topic in the research, but this needs additional development. The “management” cluster is a driving theme due to its measures on centrality (55.9) and density (87.5). Thus, the “management” network has high interaction and internal strength and was at the center of the research in this period.

Figure 5. Period 2009–2017 strategic diagram (A) and the motor cluster’s network (B) . Source: Elaborated with SciMAT.

On the other hand, we have “leadership,” which is between an emergent or a decadent theme and a motor theme, with 15.85 and 50 centrality and density values, respectively. As the topic of this study is quite recent and does not amount to excessive research, a focus on the “leadership” in so early stages makes it highly interesting as the same time than the specialized theme. Changing quadrant, the cluster “attitudes” is clearly peripheral theme, with a centrality of 0 and a density of 0.25. This last cluster will disappear on the rest of periods (2018, 2019, and 2020).

Now, the thematic network of the motor theme ( Figure 5 , right) of the period will be analyzed, driving the internal analysis of the “management” cluster. In order to disclose insights on the most relevant links, the weight of the internal links is displayed in Table 6 .

Table 6. “Generation-Z” and Management cluster network 2009–2017.

The network around the main themes of the period is composed by the following internal links: (a) “experiences” is linked with “competence,” and (b) “conflict” with “personality.” To a lesser extent, latter clusters are also connected with “Generation-Y” and “Generation-X,” the “experiences” cluster with “labor market,” and the latter with “Competence.” The different models to be adopted in terms of conflict and the personality of workers are also part of the network of this main theme.

Second Period 2018

Likewise, strategic map of the 2018 period ( Figure 6 , left) visually shows how the clusters of the period are distributed according to density and centrality measures ( Table 5 ), increasing the number of clusters by one with respect to the previous period.

Figure 6. Period 2018 strategic diagram (A) and motor cluster’s network (B) . Source: Elaborated with SciMAT.

In this case, there are two motor clusters that define the thematic of the period, “Generation-Z” and “Generation-Y.” Both clusters attract publications and have high average citations. The “Generation-Z” cluster is characterized by a high interaction (145.61) and by internal strength (54.06). In the Figure 6 , it is closer to the top right corner of the strategic diagram, meaning, it is the most influential thematic in the period. The “Generation-Y” cluster is also a motor theme but to a lesser extent, with centrality of 51.85 and a density of 51.94.

There are two groups of clusters on the border of the basic topics-emergent and decadent themes and on the border of basic topics-motor themes. On the one hand, “career” is the cluster that receives the highest number of citations, but due to its density, it is on the borderline between the emerging or decadent themes and the basic themes. In turn, the “organizational” cluster, due to its centrality, is on the borderline between basic and driving themes. We will have to check their evolution to see if they will finally fall into one of the surrounding quadrants.

Within the peripheral themes, “consumers” is a new cluster. Finally, the “teams” cluster can classify as an emergent or decadent theme, not very developed, with a centrality of 11.75, and the lowest density within the sample (50).

Regarding the internal thematic analysis of the main motor theme network ( Figure 6 , right and Table 7 ), “Generation-Z” maintains the most important links as follows: “Baby-boomers” with “Generation-X”; “models” with “behavior”; and “organizational commitment” with “Entrepreneurship.” Moreover, to a lesser extent, “culture and values” with “Generation-X,” “behavior,” “models,” and “baby-boomers.”

Table 7. “Generation-Z” Cluster Network 2018.

Third Period 2019

The strategic map in Figure 7 (left) shows how the cluster of 2019 period stands according to density and centrality measures of Callon (previous Table 5 ). There are two driving themes that define the thematic of the period and attract publications, “outcomes” and “Generation-Z,” which define the current tendency of the published articles. Both are characterized by the highest internal strength of their networks, being 82.90 and 81.21, respectively. One of the main differences between these two motor themes is that “Generation-Z” has attracted far more publications (22) and citations (46 cites) than “impact” (numbers 6 and 7). The “Generation-Z” cluster appeared in the first period (2009–2017), losing importance in the second (2019) as it did not even appear in the longitudinal map, and reappearing even more strongly in the last one (2020–2021). In this new appearance of “Generation-Z”, its centrality increased at over 50% and its density at over 60%.

Figure 7. Period 2019 strategic diagram (A) and motor cluster’s network (B) . Source: elaborated with SciMAT.

The cluster “personality” enters into play as an emergent theme due to a low centrality and “learning-teaching-education” as a basic theme with a higher centrality being its internal consistency more important in comparison to “personality” ( Figure 7 , left).

Additionally, there is one peripheral theme, “theory of planned behaviour” which has evolved from the second period (2018) from the cluster’s “career” and “consumers.”

With regards to the internal thematic analysis of “generations” as the main driving theme network of the period ( Figure 7 , right), the internal links are shown in Table 8 . In this specific period, the relations with the highest density are: “workplace” with “Generation-Z”; and “baby-boomers” with “Generation-X.” To a lesser extent is observed the linkage of “Generation-Y” with “Generation-Z,” and “baby-boomers” with “Generation-X.” All clusters share links to other themes with lower weights.

Table 8. “Generations” cluster network 2019.

Fourth Period 2020

In this last period, the “workplace” cluster appears as a driving theme, leading the research in the last year 2020. If we consider the evolution of the themes in the longitudinal analysis ( Figure 8 ), the “workplace” cluster is linked to the “Generation-Z” and “generations” clusters of previous periods. In this last period, it reaches the necessary internal consistency to be the leading researching theme. On the other hand, the “generations” cluster remains as a basic theme without evolving with respect to 2019, although it receives 22 citations in 2020. The peripheral themes are “organizational change” and “outcomes,” losing its relevance from 2019, although it receives 22 citations in 2020. The peripheral themes are “organizational change” and “Outcomes” which in the previous period was a driving theme, and also, they lost their relevance in 2020. There are no emerging or declining themes for this period.

Figure 8. Period 2020 strategic diagram (A) and motor cluster’s network (B) . Source: elaborated with SciMAT.

Regarding the internal analysis of the driving theme “workplace” (the main thematic network driving the period) ( Figure 8 , right), the internal links are shown in Table 9 . The most intense relationships are: “mentor” and “factor analysis” and to a lesser extent “organizations” and “industry 4.0,” “organizations” and “leadership,” “organizations” and “Generation-Y,” and “factor analysis” and “organizational.” Finally, from a cross-period approach, it is evident that the main driving theme is “Generation-Z” but obviously the keyword filter included in the search is the main reason.

Table 9. “Workplace” cluster network 2020.

Implications

The aim of this work has been to disclose the thematic research trends and their evolution on the Gen Z as employees within the workforce and in the workplace. Additionally, the authors wanted to shed light to the themes that have not been sufficiently developed yet. The idea is that this research should not fully dive into the content, which was used for the research, but rather to see a full context on the matter. This is to serve as a support for further research. The effectiveness, as well as the relevance of the methodology, used is proven, and the data collected has been properly uncovered through a series of step, which pretended to go from the general study fields as the authors or journal, to more concrete aspects of the topic, such as the network of the most influential thematic clusters of each period.

Additionally, 13 authors stood out from the rest, having written more than one article, while 33 have received more than 20 citations. From these, one author is worth mentioning, Goh, who not only has written three articles while the rest have written two or less, but he has also received the maximum number of citations (92) for its research on the topic related with the hospitality sector, the theory of planned behavior, talent management, and recruitment strategies ( Goh and Kong, 2018 ; Goh and Lee, 2018 ; Goh and Okumus, 2020 ). The most relevant journals with respect to the JIF are the International Journal of Hospitality Management , the California Management Review , the Journal of Competitiveness , the Tourism and Management Perspectives , and the Sustainability , from which all are above 3.500 JIF index. An expected result from the journal analysis is the focus on management in the most impactful journals. Another interesting finding from the research is the orientation on hospitality and tourism, psychology, and nursing as related areas of the study joining the main topic of this research. But there is a lack of studies related with other sectors as basic, at the same time than complex, as financial sectors, or customer service other than from the hospitality and tourism industry.

Mostly from the tendency change in 2018, the number of publications on the topic have increased, but still are relatively low. The results demonstrate an increasingly meaningful line of research on Gen Z within the workforce and the workplace, since 2018. These research results are mainly from the management field, remarking the importance, and impact this generation has on companies and their dynamics. The highest number of works were published in 2019, after which a small decrease in the number of documents occurred in 2020.

The evolution of the keywords between the periods had the following effects: (a) there has only been an increase of 12 words within the whole length of the periods studied; (b) throughout this complete time frame, 28 keywords were discarded; (c) whereas 40 were included. Furthermore, the longitudinal analysis has allowed to discover that the four clusters of the first period (“generation Z,” “management,” “attitudes,” and “leadership”) have been the basis for the evolution of the theme.

The “generation Z” cluster stands out in the first and the second period. This cluster evolves into the “generations” cluster in the third period, and into the “workplace” cluster in the last period. We believe that this fact indicates the interest of considering workplace as an ecosystem in which Gen Z must interact with other previous generations. The size of the “workplace” cluster indicates that this line of research may potentially expand in the near future.

Limitations

This article is admitted being subject to certain limitations. Firstly, the sample used for the research is small and was only exclusively obtained from the Web of Science database. In this case, the study could be compared with similar bibliometric analyses on the matter involving different databases, e.g., Scopus. Secondly, the elimination of documents not directly related to the topic and the subjective clustering of words into word groups may offer slightly different results if another person replicates the review.

The special characteristics and behaviors of the newest generation to enter the labor market make the management of Gen Z within the workplace and in the workforce a real challenge. It is not only necessary to acknowledge that changes are coming, but also imperative to start adapting now if it has not started yet. When a new age cohort enters the workforce, firms and employees face a modification of the work dynamic and company culture. Therefore, the role of human resources management is crucial for an effective onboarding and for the correct adaptation to the new normal workplace. The addition of another generation to the work environment will affect both the professional and the social context in which the employees develop their careers. No misunderstanding or wrongful generalization of methods and techniques should be done, as the strategic goals of a firm are individual, and the formal and cultural structures of the company need to be aligned with it for correct decision-making.

As for the results of this research, they allow a better understanding of thematic field of the Gen Z related to the workforce and in the workplace. The analysis revealed the development of the study on Gen Z, the workforce, and the workplace in a time frame of 11 years. From 2009 to 2017, the number of publications is relatively low, and it is from 2018 when the topic starts attracting higher attention. Most authors have only written one document, whereas a few have written two, and only one stood out for the number of publications and citations, Goh, who has written four articles and received 168 citations among all his works. In addition, the journals with most impact are the International Journal of Hospitality Management , the California Management Review , the Journal of Competitiveness , and the Sustainability.

There is a slow but sustained growth of research on the topic, together with a relatively small rate of keywords incorporated and a low stability among periods. This suggests a weakly increasing interest of researchers in the field, and a broad margin for future development. Moving on to the analysis of the thematic cluster evolution, the distribution of themes has been discussed, and the driving theme network of each period has been displayed. The main core of the research on Gen Z within the workforce and in the workplace has been redundantly developing around “Generation-Z, “workplace,” “generations,” “learning-teaching-education,” and “career.” With the volatile progress of the key clusters on the topic through the periods, it is not safe to say which themes will be surely included in the next years, but it seems that Gen Z will keep a strong importance, as well as the current basic clusters, which are related to performance and the workforce.

There are some suggestions in relation to areas with the need of future research due to the absence or to insufficient publications developed. On one hand, a technological aspect on the workplace could be addressed to shed some light on how companies need to prepare or are presently preparing for a digital evolution in the workplace motivated by the tech-savvy Gen Z. On the other hand, it would be interesting to study the knowledge and skills of generation Z as leaders and how they are transferred to future generations.

Author Contributions

ES-T, EN-R, GB-G, and MB-M designed, performed, analyzed the research, wrote the manuscript, searched literature, analyzed, and verified the data of this article. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736820/full#supplementary-material

Barhate, B., and Dirani, K. M. (2021). Career aspirations of generation Z: a systematic literature review. Eur. J. Train. Dev. [Epub. ahead-of-print]. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-07-2020-0124

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bejtkovsky, J. (2013). “Age management concept - opportunity or threat,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Business Information Management Association Conference on Creating Global Competitive Economies: 2020 Vision Planning and Implementation [Conference Presentation] , Rome, 805–813.

Google Scholar

Bejtkovsky, J. (2016). The employees of baby boomers generation, generation X, generation Y and generation Z in selected czech corporations as conceivers of development and competitiveness in their corporation. J. Competitiveness 8, 105–123. doi: 10.7441/joc.2016.04.07

Bencsik, A., Horvath-Csikos, G., and Juhasz, T. (2016). Y and Z generations at workplaces. J. Competitiveness 8, 90–106. doi: 10.7441/joc.2016.03.06

Bielen, M., and Kubiczek, J. (2020). Response of the labor market to the needs and expectations of generation Z. E Mentor 4, 87–94. doi: 10.15219/em86.1486

Burton, C. M., Mayhall, C., Cross, J., and Patterson, P. P. (2019). Critical elements for multigenerational teams: a systematic review. Team Perform. Manag. 25, 369–401. doi: 10.1108/TPM-12-2018-0075

Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., and Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics 22, 155–205. doi: 10.1007/BF02019280

Chicca, J., and Shellenbarger, T. (2018). Connecting with generation Z: approaches in nursing education. Teach. Learn. Nurs. 13, 180–184. doi: 10.1016/j.teln.2018.03.008

Chillakuri, B. (2020). Understanding generation Z expectations for effective onboarding. J. Organ. Chang Manag. 33, 1277–1296. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-02-2020-0058

Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., and Han, S. J. (2018). Generation Z’s sustainable volunteering: motivations, attitudes and job performance. Sustainability 10:1400. doi: 10.3390/su10051400

Christensen, S. S., Wilson, B. L., and Edelman, L. S. (2018). Can i relate? A review and guide for nurse managers in leading generations. J. Nurs. Manag. 26, 689–695. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12601

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., and Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: a new science mapping analysis software tool. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 1609–1630. doi: 10.1002/asi

Cresnar, R., and Nedelko, Z. (2020). Understanding future leaders: how are personal values of generations Y and Z tailored to leadership in industry 4.0? Sustainability 12:4417. doi: 10.3390/su12114417

Csiszárik-Kocsír, Á, and Garia-Fodor, M. (2018). Motivation analysis and preference system of choosing a workplace as segmentation criteria based on a country wide research result focus on generation of Z. J. Model New Eur. 27, 67–85. doi: 10.24193/OJMNE.2018.27.03

Francis, T., and Hoefel, F. (2018). True Gen’: Generation Z and Its Implications for Companies. Atlanta, GA: McKinsey & Company.

Goh, E., and Jie, F. (2019). To waste or not to waste: exploring motivational factors of generation Z hospitality employees towards food wastage in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 80, 126–135. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.02.005

Goh, E., and Kong, S. (2018). Theft in the hotel workplace: exploring frontline employees’ perceptions towards hotel employee theft. Tour. Hosp. Res. 18, 442–455. doi: 10.1177/1467358416683770

Goh, E., and Lee, C. A. (2018). Workforce to be reckoned with: the emerging pivotal generation Z hospitality workforce. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 73, 20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.016

Goh, E., and Okumus, F. (2020). Avoiding the hospitality workforce bubble: strategies to attract and retain generation Z talent in the hospitality workforce. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 33:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100603

Graczyk-Kucharska, M., and Erickson, G. S. A. (2020). Person-organization fit model of generation Z: preliminary studies. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov. 16, 149–176. doi: 10.7341/20201645

Gyurak Babelova, Z., Starecek, A., Caganováa, D., Fero, M., and Cambal, M. (2019). Perceived service ability of outplacement programs as a part of sustainable human resource management. Sustainability 11:4748. doi: 10.3390/su11174748

Hampton, D., and Welsh, D. (2019). Work values of generation Z nurses. JONA J. Nurs. Adm. 49, 480–486. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000791

Hernaus, T., and Poloski Vokic, N. (2014). Work design for different generational cohorts: determining common and idiosyncratic job characteristics. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 27, 615–641. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-05-2014-0104

Klopotan, I., Aleksic, A., and Vinkovic, N. (2020). Do business ethics and ethical decision making still matter: perspective of different generational cohorts. Bus. Syst. Res. J. 11, 31–43. doi: 10.2478/bsrj-2020-0003

Lanier, K. (2017). 5 things HR professionals need to know. Strategic HR Rev. 16, 288–290. doi: 10.1108/SHR-08-2017-0051

Lazanyi, K., and Bilan, Y. (2017). Generation Z on the labour market – do they trust others within their workplace? Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 16, 78–93. doi: 10.17512/pjms.2017.16.1.07

Leslie, B., Anderson, C., Bickham, C., Horman, J., Overly, A., Gentry, C., et al. (2021). Generation Z perceptions of a positive workplace environment. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 33, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10672-021-09366-2

Magano, J., Silva, C., Figueiredo, C., Vitória, A., Nogueira, T., and Pimenta Dinis, M. A. (2020). Generation Z: fitting project management soft skills competencies—A mixed-method approach. Educ. Sci. 10:187. doi: 10.3390/educsci10070187

Mahmoud, A. B., Fuxman, L., Mohr, I., Reisel, W. D., and Grigoriou, N. A. (2021). Motivational standpoint of job insecurity effects on organizational citizenship behaviors: a generational Study. Scand. J. Psychol. 62, 267–275. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12689

Maloni, M., Hiatt, M. S., and Campbell, S. (2019). Understanding the work values of gen Z business students. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 17:100320. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100320

Meister, J. (2020). Top 10 HR Trends That Matter Most in the 2020 Workplace. Available online at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2020/01/15/top-10-hr-trends-that-matter-most-in-the-2020-workplace/ (Accessed June 2, 2021).

O’Boyle, C., Atack, J., and Monahan, K. (2017). Generation Z Enters the Workforce: Generational and Technological Challenges in Entry-Level Jobs. Available online at: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/technology-and-the-future-of-work/generation-z-enters-workforce.html (accessed May 12, 2021).

Ozkan, M., and Solmaz, B. (2015). The changing face of the employees - generation Z and their perceptions of work (a study applied to university students). Proc. Econ. Finance 26, 476–483. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00876-X

Pataki-Bittó, F., and Kapusy, K. (2021). Work environment transformation in the post COVID-19 based on work values of the future workforce. J. Corp Real Estate 23:3. doi: 10.1108/JCRE-08-2020-0031

PR Newswire (2014). Gen Y and Gen Z Global Workplace Expectations Study. Workplace Intelligence Website. Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/millennial-branding-randstad-us-release-first/docview/1558861958/se-2?accountid=14568 (accessed May 10, 2021).

Randstad Canada (2014). From Y to Z – A Guide to the Next Generation of Employees. Available online at: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/148716/file-2537935536-pdf/Gen_Y_Brochures/randstad-from-y-to-z-web.en_LR.pdf (Accessed May 12, 2021).

Raslie, H., and Ting, S.-H. (2021). Gen Y and Gen Z communication style. Estud. Econ. Apl. 39:4268. doi: 10.25115/eea.v39i1.4268

Rodriguez, M., Boyer, S., Fleming, D., and Cohen, S. (2019). Managing the next generation of sales, gen Z/millennial cusp: an exploration of grit, entrepreneurship, and loyalty. J. Bus Bus Mark 26, 43–55. doi: 10.1080/1051712X.2019.1565136

Sakdiyakorn, M., Golubovskaya, M., and Solnet, D. (2021). Understanding generation Z through collective consciousness: impacts for hospitality work and employment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 94:102822. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102822

Sánchez-Hernández, M. I., González-López, ÓR., Buenadicha-Mateos, M., and Tato-Jiménez, J. L. (2019). Work-life balance in great companies and pending issues for engaging new generations at work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:5122. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16245122

Scholz, C. (2019). “The Generations Z in Europe – an introduction,” in Generations Z in Europe (The Changing Context of Managing People) , eds C. Scholz and A. Rennig (Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited), 3–31.

Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? Calif. Manage. Rev. 61, 5–18. doi: 10.1177/0008125619841006

Sladek, S., and Grabinger, A. (2014). Gen Z: The First Generation of the 21st Century Has Arrived. Richmond: XYZ University.

Smaliukiene, R., and Bekesiene, S. (2020). Towards sustainable human resources: how generational differences impact subjective wellbeing in the military? Sustainability 12:10016. doi: 10.3390/su122310016

Snieska, V., Navickas, V., Grencikova, A., Safrankova, J. M., and Sikyr, M. (2020). Fundamental human resource management practices aimed at dealing with new challenges in the labour market. Transform. Bus Econ. 19, 38–51.

Sobrino-De Toro, I., Labrador-Fernandez, J., and De Nicolas, V. L. (2019). Generational diversity in the workplace: psychological empowerment and flexibility in spanish companies. Front. Psychol. 10:1953. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01953

Tato-Jimenez, J. L., Buenadicha-Mateos, M., and Gonzalez-Lopez, O. R. (2019). Evolution and sustainability of benefits offered to employees in on-line recruitment. Sustainability 11:4313. doi: 10.3390/su11164313

Truxillo, D. M., Cadiz, D. M., Rineer, J. R., Zaniboni, S., and Fraccaroli, F. A. (2012). Lifespan perspective on job design: fitting the job and the worker to promote job satisfaction, engagement, and performance. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2, 340–360. doi: 10.1177/2041386612454043

Urick, M. J. (2019). The Generation Myth: How to Improve Intergenerational Relationships in the Workplace. New York, NY: Business Expert Press.

Zúñiga Ortega, D. C., Aguado García, D., Barroso Rodríguez, J., and de Miguel Calvo, J. M. (2019). Work ethic in ecuador: an analysis of the differences in four generational cohorts. An. Psicol. 35, 496–505. doi: 10.6018/analesps.35.3.342671

Keywords : Generation Z, workplace, workforce, bibliometric review, SciMAT, thematic cluster

Citation: Benítez-Márquez MD, Sánchez-Teba EM, Bermúdez-González G and Núñez-Rydman ES (2022) Generation Z Within the Workforce and in the Workplace: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front. Psychol. 12:736820. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736820

Received: 05 July 2021; Accepted: 16 December 2021; Published: 01 February 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Benítez-Márquez, Sánchez-Teba, Bermúdez-González and Núñez-Rydman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: María Dolores Benítez-Márquez, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Generation Z

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Pew Research Center - Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins
• The Canadian Encyclopedia - Generation Z in Canada

Recent News

Generation Z , term used to describe Americans born during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Some sources give the specific year range of 1997–2012, although the years spanned are sometimes contested or debated because generations and their zeitgeists are difficult to delineate . Generation Z follows the millennial generation, sometimes called Generation Y , which followed Generation X , the first generation to be assigned a letter. Reaching the end of the standard Latin alphabet , Generation Z is succeeded by Generation Alpha , the first generation to be assigned a Greek letter.

Members of Generation Z, or Gen Zers, have been undeniably shaped by the Great Recession of 2007–09 and the COVID-19 pandemic. They grew up in the era of the iPhone , which debuted in 2007, and of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security , a governmental department founded in 2002 after the September 11 attacks that most of them are too young to remember. Because of this, early names for Gen Z included “iGeneration” and “Homelanders.” In their early years they witnessed watershed social changes, such as the election of the first Black U.S. president ( Barack Obama ) and the legalization of same-sex marriage .

Generation Z is, in general, the most diverse generation of Americans to date in a variety of demographics . Nearly 50 percent of Gen Zers are racial and ethnic minorities, and 1 in 4 identifies as Hispanic . Gen Zers are more likely than previous generations to have at least one foreign-born parent, although immigrants make up a smaller proportion of Generation Z than of millennials. Gen Zers have grown up in more diverse settings than did previous generations and have higher percentages of single-parent families, mixed-race families, and LGBTQ+ parents in legally recognized partnerships. In fact, 16 percent of Gen Zers identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community themselves, more than any previous generation. They are also shifting and eschewing gender norms more than any previous generation, with more than half of Gen Zers saying that forms and profiles should allow for sex or gender options other than “man” and “woman.”

They are more likely to reside in cities and metropolitan areas, only 13 percent growing up in rural areas, and Gen Zers are less likely to move than those of previous generations were at the same age. Research in 2018 showed that the oldest members of Gen Z were delaying or perhaps even foregoing marriage, only 4 percent getting married between the ages of 18 and 21—nearly half as many as in the millennial generation, of which 7 percent got married at a young age. This may be partly because more of them are going to college.

Gen Z is the first true digital native generation. As opposed to millennials , the generation that lived through the rise of the Internet while still growing up with cable television and landline phones, Gen Zers have lived their lives fully connected digitally. Most of them do not remember life before smartphones , and all have grown up during a time of ubiquitous access to streaming content and social media . The way they interact with the Internet and with each other via the Internet is different from the ways of previous generations. Whereas millennials went through an era of very open and personal posting on social media—deeply personal and public posts on Facebook , Twitter , or blogs —Gen Zers have turned more toward anonymous forms of social media, such as Snapchat and Whisper, which allow users to keep their audience limited and have messages disappear after the recipient views them.

Some reports have noted members of Generation Z as more pragmatic and earlier to mature than those of previous generations, Gen Zers being more likely to graduate high school , more likely to go to college, and more cautious in their career choices. They are more likely than any previous generation to have at least one parent who graduated college. They were found less likely to engage in underage drinking or to ride in cars without wearing a seat belt. This may be partly because of their being mostly raised by Generation X parents, who were largely concerned with childhood safety. Another contributing factor could be that Gen Zers were growing up during the recession of 2007–09, during which they witnessed adults around them experiencing financial trouble and employment instability. As they began moving into adulthood, Gen Zers aimed to avoid the difficulties that plagued the generations, including the baby boom, before them.

‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies

See our latest research on gen z in america  and gen z in asia ..

Long before the term “influencer” was coined, young people played that social role by creating and interpreting trends. Now a new generation of influencers has come on the scene. Members of Gen Z—loosely, people born from 1995 to 2010 —are true digital natives: from earliest youth, they have been exposed to the internet, to social networks, and to mobile systems. That context has produced a hypercognitive generation very comfortable with collecting and cross-referencing many sources of information and with integrating virtual and offline experiences.

As global connectivity soars, generational shifts could come to play a more important role in setting behavior than socioeconomic differences do. Young people have become a potent influence on people of all ages and incomes, as well as on the way those people consume and relate to brands. In Brazil, Gen Z already makes up 20 percent of the country’s population. McKinsey recently collaborated with Box1824, a research agency specializing in consumer trends, to conduct a survey investigating the behaviors of this new generation and its influence on consumption patterns in Brazil. 1 From June to October 2017, researchers, psychologists, and social scientists undertook ethnographic field research to observe how Gen Zers communicate, what they believe in, and the choices they make (and why). Using advanced ethnographic techniques (scenario invasion), researchers conducted 120 qualitative interviews in Recife, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo with influential people from this generation. Besides the field research, 90 Gen Zers participated in focus groups in these three cities, as well as in Florianópolis and Goiânia. From October 3 to 11, we also conducted an online survey with 2,321 men and women from 14 to 64 years of age and various socioeconomic brackets in Brazil. The survey coupled qualitative insights about Gen Z in three of the country’s major cities (Recife, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo) with multigenerational quantitative data that cut across socioeconomic classes. Our goal was to understand how this new generation’s views might affect the broader population, as well as consumption in general.

Our study based on the survey reveals four core Gen Z behaviors, all anchored in one element: this generation’s search for truth. Gen Zers value individual expression and avoid labels. They mobilize themselves for a variety of causes. They believe profoundly in the efficacy of dialogue to solve conflicts and improve the world. Finally, they make decisions and relate to institutions in a highly analytical and pragmatic way. That is why, for us, Gen Z is “True Gen.” In contrast, the previous generation— the millennials , sometimes called the “me generation”—got its start in an era of economic prosperity and focuses on the self. Its members are more idealistic, more confrontational, and less willing to accept diverse points of view.

More about Gen Z

Listen to the authors of this article describe Gen Z characteristics in greater detail.

Such behaviors influence the way Gen Zers view consumption and their relationships with brands. Companies should be attuned to three implications for this generation: consumption as access rather than possession, consumption as an expression of individual identity, and consumption as a matter of ethical concern. Coupled with technological advances, this generational shift is transforming the consumer landscape in a way that cuts across all socioeconomic brackets and extends beyond Gen Z, permeating the whole demographic pyramid. The possibilities now emerging for companies are as transformational as they are challenging. Businesses must rethink how they deliver value to the consumer, rebalance scale and mass production against personalization, and—more than ever—practice what they preach when they address marketing issues and work ethics.

Meet True Gen

Generations are shaped by the context in which they emerged (Exhibit 1). Baby boomers, born from 1940 to 1959, were immersed in the post–World War II context and are best represented by consumption as an expression of ideology. Gen Xers (born 1960–79) consumed status, while millennials (born 1980–94) consumed experiences. For Generation Z, as we have seen, the main spur to consumption is the search for truth, in both a personal and a communal form (Exhibit 2). This generation feels comfortable not having only one way to be itself. Its search for authenticity generates greater freedom of expression and greater openness to understanding different kinds of people.

‘Undefined ID’: Expressing individual truth

I need to be free; I need to be myself, increasingly be myself, every day. With the internet, I feel much more free. —Female respondent, 22, city of São Paulo

I really like things that are unisex! I think it’s absurd that stores and brands split everything into “male” and “female.” After all, fabric is genderless. —Female respondent, 22, Goiânia

For Gen Zers, the key point is not to define themselves through only one stereotype but rather for individuals to experiment with different ways of being themselves and to shape their individual identities over time (Exhibit 3). In this respect, you might call them “identity nomads.”

Seventy-six percent of Gen Zers say they are religious. At the same time, they are also the generation most open to a variety of themes not necessarily aligned with the broader beliefs of their declared religions. For example, 20 percent of them do not consider themselves exclusively heterosexual, as opposed to 10 percent for other generations. Sixty percent of Gen Zers think that same-sex couples should be able to adopt children—ten percentage points more than people in other generations do.

Gender fluidity may be the most telling reflection of “undefined ID,” but it isn’t the only one. Gen Zers are always connected. They constantly evaluate unprecedented amounts of information and influences. For them, the self is a place to experiment, test, and change. Seven out of ten Gen Zers say it is important to defend causes related to identity, so they are more interested than previous generations have been in human rights; in matters related to race and ethnicity; in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues; and in feminism (Exhibit 4).

‘Communaholic’: Connecting to different truths

We each have our own style and way of being, but what binds us is that we accept and understand everyone’s styles. —Male respondent, 16, Recife

Gen Zers are radically inclusive. They don’t distinguish between friends they meet online and friends in the physical world. They continually flow between communities that promote their causes by exploiting the high level of mobilization technology makes possible. Gen Zers value online communities because they allow people of different economic circumstances to connect and mobilize around causes and interests. (Sixty-six percent of the Gen Zers in our survey believe that communities are created by causes and interests, not by economic backgrounds or educational levels. That percentage is well above the corresponding one for millennials, Gen Xers, and baby boomers.) Fifty-two percent of Gen Zers think it is natural for every individual to belong to different groups (compared with 45 percent of the people in other generations), and Gen Zers have no problem with moving between groups.

‘Dialoguer’: Understanding different truths

We must practice tolerance, and we must learn to listen and accept differences. —Male respondent, 20, Gioânia

Gen Zers believe in the importance of dialogue and accept differences of opinion with the institutions in which they participate and with their own families (Exhibit 5). They can interact with institutions that reject their personal values without abandoning those values. The fact that Gen Zers feel comfortable interacting with traditional religious institutions without abandoning personal beliefs that might not be broadly accepted by these institutions also demonstrates their pragmatism. Rather than spurn an institution altogether, Gen Zers would rather engage with it to extract whatever makes sense for them.

Members of this generation therefore tend to believe that change must come from dialogue: 57 percent of millennials, Gen Xers, and baby boomers think they would have to break with the system to change the world, compared with 49 percent of Gen Zers. Gen Z is also more willing to accommodate the failings of companies. Thirty-nine percent of the people in this generation, for example, expect companies to answer customer complaints in the same day; for the three earlier generations, the percentage is much higher—52 percent.

Gen Z’s belief in dialogue combines a high value for individual identity, the rejection of stereotypes , and a considerable degree of pragmatism. That brings us to the fourth core behavior of Gen Z.

‘Realistic’: Unveiling the truth behind all things

I don’t believe this talk of investing in the dream and all that. Work is work. —Female respondent, 22, Salvador, state of Bahia

Gen Zers, with vast amounts of information at their disposal, are more pragmatic and analytical about their decisions than members of previous generations were. Sixty-five percent of the Gen Zers in our survey said that they particularly value knowing what is going on around them and being in control. This generation of self-learners is also more comfortable absorbing knowledge online than in traditional institutions of learning.

What’s more, Gen Z was raised at a time of global economic stress —in fact, the greatest economic downturn in Brazil’s history. These challenges made Gen Zers less idealistic than the millennials we surveyed (Exhibit 6). Many Gen Zers are keenly aware of the need to save for the future and see job stability as more important than a high salary. They already show a high preference for regular employment rather than freelance or part-time work, which may come as a surprise compared to the attitude of millennials, for example. According to the survey, 42 percent of Gen Zers from 17 to 23 years old are already gainfully employed in either full- or part-time jobs or as freelance workers—a high percentage for people so young.

Gen Z: Consumption and implications for companies

The youthful forms of behavior we discuss here are influencing all generations and, ultimately, attitudes toward consumption as well. Three forces are emerging in a powerful confluence of technology and behavior.

Consumption re-signified: From possession to access

This more pragmatic and realistic generation of consumers expects to access and evaluate a broad range of information before purchases. Gen Zers analyze not only what they buy but also the very act of consuming. Consumption has also gained a new meaning. For Gen Z—and increasingly for older generations as well—consumption means having access to products or services, not necessarily owning them. As access becomes the new form of consumption, unlimited access to goods and services (such as car-riding services, video streaming, and subscriptions) creates value. Products become services, and services connect consumers.

As collaborative consumption gains traction, people are also starting to view it as a way to generate additional income in the “ gig economy .” Another aspect of the gig economy involves consumers who take advantage of their existing relationships with companies to generate additional income by working temporarily for them. Some companies are already embracing the implications.

Would you like to learn more about our Consumer Packaged Goods Practice ?

Car manufacturers, for example, are renting out vehicles directly to consumers, so that instead of selling 1,000 cars, these companies may sell one car 1,000 times. The role of sporting-goods businesses, likewise, has shifted to helping people become better athletes by providing access to equipment, technology, coaching, and communities of like-minded consumers. Similarly, traditional consumer-goods companies should consider creating platforms of products, services, and experiences that aggregate or connect customers around brands. Companies historically defined by the products they sell or consume can now rethink their value-creation models, leveraging more direct relationships with consumers and new distribution channels.

Singularity: Consumption as an expression of individual identity

The core of Gen Z is the idea of manifesting individual identity. Consumption therefore becomes a means of self-expression—as opposed, for example, to buying or wearing brands to fit in with the norms of groups. Led by Gen Z and millennials, consumers across generations are not only eager for more personalized products but also willing to pay a premium for products that highlight their individuality. Fifty-eight percent of A-class and 43 percent of C-class consumers 2 2. A-class consumers have household incomes above $6,631; B-class consumers, incomes from $1,540 to $6,631; and C-class consumers, incomes from $516 to $1,540. say they are willing to pay more for personalized offerings. Seventy percent of A-class and 58 percent of C-class consumers are willing to pay a premium for products from brands that embrace causes those consumers identify with. And here’s another finding that stood out in our survey: 48 percent of Gen Zers—but only 38 percent of consumers in other generations—said they value brands that don’t classify items as male or female. For most brands, that is truly new territory.

Although expectations of personalization are high, consumers across generations are not yet totally comfortable about sharing their personal data with companies. Only 10 to 15 percent of them declare not to have any issues in sharing personal data with companies. If there is a clear counterpart from companies to consumers, then the number of consumers willing to share personal information with companies goes up to 35 percent—still a relatively small number.

As the on- and offline worlds converge, consumers expect more than ever to consume products and services any time and any place, so omnichannel marketing and sales must reach a new level. For consumers who are always and everywhere online, the online–offline boundary doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, we are entering the “segmentation of one” age now that companies can use advanced analytics to improve their insights from consumer data. Customer information that companies have long buried in data repositories now has strategic value, and in some cases information itself creates the value. Leading companies should therefore have a data strategy that will prepare them to develop business insights by collecting and interpreting information about individual consumers while protecting data privacy.

For decades, consumer companies and retailers have realized gains through economies of scale. Now they may have to accept a two-track model: the first for scale and mass consumption, the other for customization catering to specific groups of consumers or to the most loyal consumers. In this scenario, not only marketing but also the supply chain and manufacturing processes would require more agility and flexibility. For businesses, that kind of future raises many questions. How long will clothing collections grouped by gender continue to make sense, for example? How should companies market cars or jewelry in an inclusive, unbiased way? To what extent should the need for a two-speed business transform the internal processes and structure of companies?

Consumption anchored on ethics

Finally, consumers increasingly expect brands to “take a stand.” The point is not to have a politically correct position on a broad range of topics. It is to choose the specific topics (or causes) that make sense for a brand and its consumers and to have something clear to say about those particular issues. In a transparent world, younger consumers don’t distinguish between the ethics of a brand, the company that owns it, and its network of partners and suppliers. A company’s actions must match its ideals, and those ideals must permeate the entire stakeholder system.

Gen Z consumers are mostly well educated about brands and the realities behind them. When they are not, they know how to access information and develop a point of view quickly. If a brand advertises diversity but lacks diversity within its own ranks, for example, that contradiction will be noticed. In fact, members of the other generations we surveyed share this mind-set. Seventy percent of our respondents say they try to purchase products from companies they consider ethical. Eighty percent say they remember at least one scandal or controversy involving a company. About 65 percent try to learn the origins of anything they buy—where it is made, what it is made from, and how it is made. About 80 percent refuse to buy goods from companies involved in scandals.

All this is relevant for businesses, since 63 percent of the consumers we surveyed said that recommendations from friends are their most trusted source for learning about products and brands. The good news is that consumers—in particular Gen Zers—are tolerant of brands when they make mistakes, if the mistakes are corrected. That path is more challenging for large corporations, since a majority of our respondents believe that major brands are less ethical than small ones.

For consumers, marketing and work ethics are converging. Companies must therefore not only identify clearly the topics on which they will take positions but also ensure that everyone throughout the value chain gets on board. For the same reason, companies ought to think carefully about the marketing agents who represent their brands and products. Remember too that consumers increasingly understand that some companies subsidize their influencers. Perhaps partly for that reason, consumers tend to pay more attention to closer connections—for example, Instagram personas with 5,000 to 20,000 followers. Marketing in the digital age is posing increasingly complex challenges as channels become more fragmented and ever changing.

Young people have always embodied the zeitgeist of their societies, profoundly influencing trends and behavior alike. The influence of Gen Z—the first generation of true digital natives—is now radiating outward, with the search for truth at the center of its characteristic behavior and consumption patterns. Technology has given young people an unprecedented degree of connectivity among themselves and with the rest of the population. That makes generational shifts more important and speeds up technological trends as well. For companies, this shift will bring both challenges and equally attractive opportunities. And remember: the first step in capturing any opportunity is being open to it.

Tracy Francis is a senior partner and Fernanda Hoefel is a partner in McKinsey’s São Paulo office.

The authors wish to thank the broader team of people that contributed to this article in many different forms.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The young and the restless: Generation Z in America

Asia’s Generation Z comes of age

Millennials: Burden, blessing, or both?

How Gen Z Feels About Life and the Future, in Charts

• Share article

How optimistic students feel about their future and how prepared they feel for it are at odds.

A new survey of young people from Generation Z (those ages 12 to 27) shows that most respondents feel they have a bright future ahead, but only about half feel prepared for it. Those figures are significantly lower for students who don’t plan to attend college. Students who aren’t college-bound are also less likely to feel engaged with their classwork and supported by adults in the school building.

The survey was conducted by the Walton Family Foundation and the polling firm Gallup from April 26 to May 9, with responses from 4,157 Gen Z young people, including 2,317 enrolled in a K-12 school. It is the second iteration of the survey, first released in 2023. (The Walton Family Foundation provides support for Education Week coverage of strategies for advancing opportunities for students most in need. Education Week retains sole editorial control over its coverage.)

Here’s a look at how Gen Z students feel about their education experience, future opportunities, and what they consider the most important components of a “great life.”

More Gen Z people say they are ‘thriving’ in their lives

About half of Gen Z people say they’re thriving in their lives, up slightly from 47 percent in 2023. The largest increase between the 2023 and 2024 surveys was among Gen Z adults 18 to 27 years old. Forty-seven percent of that age group this year said they were thriving, up from 41 percent last year.

But whether members of Gen Z say they’re thriving differs depending on the path they pursued after high school.

Fifty-one percent of Gen Z adults this year said they were thriving in life, a six-point increase from 2023, when 45 percent said they were thriving. But the percentage of Gen Z adults with only a high school diploma who said they were thriving dropped from 2023 to 2024—to 35 percent from 37 percent.

Students’ future outlook varies depending on college plans

Students who don’t plan to attend college were less likely than their peers who are planning to pursue a post-secondary degree to have a positive outlook for their future. Just 68 percent of students with no college plans had a positive future outlook, compared with 81 percent with plans to pursue an associate degree and 86 percent who planned to pursue a bachelor’s degree.

Students who aren’t college-bound are also less likely to agree they feel prepared for their future (40 percent) than those hoping to earn an associate degree (45 percent) or bachelor’s degree (54 percent), according to the survey results.

Their responses to another survey question could at least partially explain why. High schoolers in the survey reported that they were three to five times more likely to have heard a lot about applying to college at school (68 percent) than about other potential postsecondary paths, such as completing an apprenticeship or other variety of vocational training (23 percent), pursuing jobs that don’t require a college degree (19 percent), or starting their own business (13 percent).

When schools offer career-specific training—learning how to interview and apply for jobs, learning about available careers, and being able to complete internships and industry certificates, for example—students reported greater confidence in their ability to succeed in a career, according to the survey.

Wealth and status aren’t as important to Gen Z as other things

Most Gen Z respondents said having strong relationships with family and friends and having time to pursue hobbies are the most important components of a “great life.” Fewer prioritized being “wealthy” or having a “high-status job.”

Priorities varied depending on the age of the Gen Z survey respondents.

Those still in school were more likely to say obtaining their dream job and becoming wealthy were very important aspects of a great life. Meanwhile, Gen Z adults were more likely to prioritize getting married, having children, and volunteering in their community. Less than half of Gen Z adults said owning a home (45 percent) and having children (35 percent) are important parts of a great life.

Students who don’t plan to go to college are less likely to feel engaged and encouraged at school

Students who don’t plan to attend college were less likely than their peers to say they’re motivated to get good grades and that there’s an adult at school who encourages them.

Students who aren’t college-bound were also less likely to feel they learned something interesting at school recently and to feel challenged by their schoolwork.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Who Is Generation Z?

Navigate to:

• Table of Contents

Stat: 48%—Almost half the members of Generation Z—age 22 or younger—are racial or ethnic minorities.

Story: Step aside, Millennials. There’s a new, younger group out there: Generation Z, which includes anyone born after 1996. To learn more about this generation, we sat down with Kim Parker, director of social trends research at the Pew Research Center. Listen in to hear about Gen Z’s social, cultural, and political inclinations, and what this might mean for the future. 

Related resources:

• Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins  
• The way U.S. teens spend their time is changing, but differences between boys and girls persist
• Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues
• Early Benchmarks Show ‘Post-Millennials’ on Track to Be Most Diverse, Best-Educated Generation Yet

Stay in touch

We want to hear from you. Reach us with your suggestions and thoughts at [email protected] or @pewtrusts on Twitter. You can also rate our show or post a brief review on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , and anywhere else you listen or subscribe to the podcast.

Exclusive state-policy research, infographics, and stats every two weeks.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

MORE FROM PEW

The Latest Findings on Gen Z as Consumers and Colleagues

How we can lead lead the youngest generation..

Posted August 19, 2024 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

• What Is a Career
• Take our Procrastination Test
• Find a career counselor near me

For decades, I’ve attempted to stay on top of realities within the youngest populations entering the workforce and entering the marketplace as customers. Each new generation introduces change, as they break with the previous generation, correct two generations ahead of them, and replace three generations before them. Consider the different narratives each new population brought with them into their careers:

• The Silent Generation, 1929-1945 (Builders): Be grateful you have a job.
• The Baby Boom Generation, 1946-1964 (Boomers): I want more.
• The Baby Buster Generation, 1965-1982 (Gen Xers): Keep it real.
• The Millennial Generation, 1983-2000 (Gen Yers): Life is a cafeteria.
• The Centennial Generation, 2001-2015 (Gen Zers): I’m coping and hoping.

“I’m Coping and Hoping”

This mantra is my summary of research from Gallup , McKinsey , and the Pew Research Center , as well as hosting informal focus groups with members of Generation Z. They’re “hopeful” because they’re still young but feel they are “coping” with current, less-than-optimal realities. I’d like to help you climb into their brains to understand them as consumers and teammates. To make this memorable for you, their characteristics form the word COPING:

• C – Cynical: This is a shift from Millennials at the same age. They watched adult leaders argue over how to handle a pandemic and are polarized over most political issues. McKinsey reports that they have “less than positive outlooks, with lower levels of emotional and social wellbeing than older generations.” Looking ahead, they see an unstable economy, mass shootings , volumes of bad news coming at them on a smartphone, and aging, almost geriatric leaders in Washington, D.C. They use words like “skeptical” and “pessimistic” to describe their outlook. This may explain their distrust in leaders or suspicion of plans they feel benefit the org, not the people.
• O – Overwhelmed: Almost every Gen Zer we interviewed agreed this word best describes their life. Nine in 10 say it’s the number-one word they use to define themselves. Both Gallup and McKinsey studies report Gen Z has the “least positive outlook and the highest prevalence of mental illness of any generation.” Their angst has many sources: global unrest, climate anxiety , and educational interruptions leaving them feeling “postponed” and like they have reduced economic opportunity. Further, 58 percent of Gen Z report not having a basic social need met in their life. This may explain an inability to “pull their weight” or their need for lots of paid time off for mental health reasons.
• P – Pragmatic: They’re more pragmatic than Millennials were at the same age. In fact, the comparison is not unlike one between Boomers and Gen X. The cultural mood migrated from confidence to caution. As youth, their pragmatism is a mix of complicated idealism and worries about the future. Gen Z dreams of personal career satisfaction but expects economic struggles, which nudges them to be more private, individualistic, and realistic in their choices than Millennials were at their age. They hoped to avoid many of the traps and debt Millennials faced. This may explain their apprehension to jump on board with projects or their need for reasons when making decisions.
• I – Inclusive: More than previous generations, Gen Z deeply values racial justice, climate change , social equality, and building a sense of belonging in their community. Even consumption for Gen Z is more about access than ownership. (Think movies, music, rides, and travel stays). It’s a community feel. Ironically, Gen Z is individualistic, yet inclusive. Belonging isn’t about changing themselves so they can “fit in” but about being themselves and yet “belonging.” Gen Zers are progressive: Most see the growing ethnic diversity in the United States as positive and are less likely than elders to see the United States as superior to other nations. They want to see equity at work.
• N – Nuanced: Whatever you do, don’t pigeonhole Generation Z. Even these characteristics are meant to help you understand them, not stereotype them. They are nuanced about their preferences. Because Gen Zers are more likely to engage in educational endeavors, according to Pew Center research, and because new information is always available, Gen Z is fluid in their beliefs, sense of identity , and gender , and has cyclical preferences on goods and services. McKinsey research reveals they have an ever-changing sense of style, from retro to postmodern. This may explain their unpredictability and their avoidance of embracing absolute facts in deference to relativism.
• G – Globally savvy: Gen Z has been the most well-informed generation of youth because adults left them to their own devices; portable devices have been in their hands since middle school. This has given them a high sense of empowerment and agency, according to Australian researcher Mark McCrindle. They follow K-Pop in Asia and a climate movement centered in Europe. But globally savvy isn’t the same as tech savvy; for many, tech is about entertainment. Three in four managers say they find the new generation difficult to work with. According to ResumeBuilder, the top three reasons Gen Z is difficult to work with are lack of technological skills, effort, and motivation .

How Do We Lead Them?

• Earn their trust. Although you have a title and tenure, earn their trust through connecting. Ask questions, listen, empathize, and then guide them. You may have to slow down to accelerate later.
• Build their incentive. While older staff see their jobs as a large part of their identity, Gen Z sees their job more as a hobby. Since your voice competes with so many others, offer a “why” before your “what.”
• Invest in their future. Gen Z doesn’t want to be managed, they want to be mentored. I’ve approached supervisory roles by offering tips to succeed and coaching them to get ahead on the job.
• Offer them hope. Since their perspective is cynical, choose your words and actions well. Provide hope for them as you lead them. Communicate faith in them and their future on the team.

3 in 4 managers find it difficult to work with GenZ. Resume Builder. April 17, 2023.

Tim Elmore is the founder and president of Growing Leaders, an international non-profit organization created to develop emerging leaders.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

These Revised Guidelines Redefine Birth Years and Classifications for Millennials, Gen Z, and Gen Alpha

Whether you’re an elder Millennial who identifies more with Gen X or a ’90s baby who feels caught in between Gen Y and Gen Z, these new guidelines can help—no cap.

Move over, Generation Z: Generation Alpha is officially the most accurate label to describe the youth of today.

The Pew Research Center periodically updates the age ranges it uses to define the generational groups, and that includes the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X , and Millennials . In 2019, the organization officially added the birth years for Gen Z . Since then, other sources have weighed in on the suggested age ranges for Gen Alpha . Check out the latest definitions for each generation below:

When the Pew Research Center revised its guidelines for generational classifications in 2019, Gen Z and Gen Alpha didn’t appear on the list as separate categories. People born between 1997—the cutoff point for Millennials—and the present year were simply called “Post-Millennials.”

Gen Z has since grown into an economic and cultural force that’s hard to ignore. The world’s teens and young adults have been behind many of the biggest fashion trends , political movements , and memes of the last several years. Even though the oldest Millennials are in their early 40s, the generation has long been synonymous with young people. With Gen Z and Gen Alpha gaining more attention lately, that’s finally starting to change.

While the dates are still a bit up in the air (some argue that the oldest Zoomers were born in 1995 ), the Pew Research Center defines members of Gen Z as anyone born between 1997 and 2012. That means the group spans ages 12 to 27 as of 2024. The organization cites important political, economic, and technological factors that helped them determine the cutoff from Millennial to Gen Z. Most American Millennials were shaped by 9/11, the Iraq War, and the economic recession of 2008, while members of Gen Z may have little to no memory of these events. Gen Z is also notable for being the first generation to be totally immersed in the world of the internet since birth.

What About Gen Alpha?

The official birth years for Generation Alpha are still strongly up for debate, with some contending that they start in 2010 (syncing up with when the first iPad was released) and end in 2025, while other sources cite 2012 (or just the early 2010s) as the jumping off point for this group.

The Pew Research Center, citing concerns that generational research has become “a crowded arena” influenced by marketing, will refrain from such analysis until there’s enough historical data to support comparisons between generations at similar stages of life. The debate over Gen Alpha’s official birth years will surely persist.

What is clear is that any babies born right now definitely belong to Generation Glass, a nickname they’ve gotten thanks to how omnipresent technology has been in their formative years. Another huge factor in shaping these youngsters will be COVID-19—kids born at the start of the pandemic in 2020 will be turning 4 this year and will have no memories of life before quarantine.

As they gain influence, you can expect to hear a lot more about Gen Z and Gen Alpha, plus the industries they may or may not be blamed for “killing” into the 2020s and beyond.

A version of this story ran in 2019; it has been updated for 2024.

More Articles About Generations:

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues

Among republicans, gen z stands out in views on race, climate and the role of government, table of contents.

• Gen Zers and Millennials share views on politics and policy; large generational gaps among Republicans
• Gen Z and Millennials have similar views on gender and family
• Gen Zers most likely to say forms or online profiles should offer gender options beyond ‘man’ and ‘woman’
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

No longer the new kids on the block, Millennials have moved firmly into their 20s and 30s, and a new generation is coming into focus. Generation Z  – diverse and on track to be the most well-educated generation yet – is moving toward adulthood with a liberal set of attitudes and an openness to emerging social trends.

On a range of issues, from Donald Trump’s presidency to the role of government to racial equality and climate change, the views of Gen Z – those ages 13 to 21 in 2018 – mirror those of Millennials. 1  In each of these realms, the two younger generations hold views that differ significantly from those of their older counterparts. In most cases, members of the Silent Generation are at the opposite end, and Baby Boomers and Gen Xers fall in between. 2

It’s too early to say with certainty how the views of this new generation will evolve. Most have yet to reach voting age, and their outlook could be altered considerably by changing national conditions, world events or technological innovations. Even so, two new Pew Research Center surveys, one of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 and one of adults ages 18 and older, provide some compelling clues about where they may be headed and how their views could impact the nation’s political landscape.

Only about three-in-ten Gen Zers and Millennials (30% and 29%, respectively) approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president. This compares with 38% of Gen Xers, 43% of Boomers and 54% of Silents. Similarly, while majorities in Gen Z and the Millennial generation say government should do more to solve problems, rather than that government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, Gen Xers and Boomers are more evenly divided on this issue. For their part, most Silents would like to see a less activist government.

When it comes to views on race, the two younger generations are more likely than older generations to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the United States today. And they are much more likely than their elders to approve of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem as a sign of protest.

The younger generations are also more accepting of some of the ways in which American society is changing. Majorities among Gen Z and the Millennial generation say increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. is a good thing for society, while older generations are less convinced of this. And they’re more likely to have a positive view of interracial and same-sex marriage than their older counterparts.

As a recent Pew Research Center report highlighted, Gen Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse generation we have seen, but this isn’t all that’s driving the attitudes of this generation when it comes to issues surrounding race and diversity. There are significant, if more modest, generational differences on these issues even among non-Hispanic whites.

Roughly a third of Gen Zers know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns

While Generation Z’s views resemble those of Millennials in many areas, Gen Zers are distinct from Millennials and older generations in at least two ways, both of which reflect the cultural context in which they are coming of age. Gen Zers are more likely than Millennials to say they know someone who prefers that others use gender-neutral pronouns to refer to them: 35% say this is the case, compared with a quarter of Millennials. Among each older generation, the share saying this drops: 16% of Gen Xers, 12% of Boomers and just 7% of Silents say this.

The youngest generation is also the most likely to say forms or online profiles that ask about a person’s gender should include options other than “man” or “woman.” Roughly six-in-ten Gen Zers (59%) hold this view, compared with half of Millennials and four-in-ten or fewer Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.

These findings seem to speak more to exposure than to viewpoint, as roughly equal shares of Gen Zers and Millennials say society should be more accepting of people who don’t identify as either a man or a woman.

Members of Gen Z also stand out somewhat in their views on the role social media plays in modern news consumption. These teens and young adults are much less likely than older generations to say the fact that more people are getting their news from social media is a bad thing for society – 39% of Gen Zers hold this view, compared with about half among each of the older generations.

Among Republicans, Gen Z stands out on some key issues

While they are young and their political views may not be fully formed, there are signs that those in Generation Z who identify as Republican or lean to the Republican Party diverge somewhat from older Republicans – even Millennials – in their views on several key issues. These same generational divides are not as apparent among Democrats.

On views about race relations, Gen Z Republicans are more likely than older generations of Republicans to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites. Among Republicans, 43% of Gen Zers say this, compared with 30% of Millennials and roughly 20% of Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents. Gen Z Republicans are also much more likely than their GOP counterparts in older generations to say increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. is a good thing for society. On each of these measures, Democrats’ views are nearly uniform across generations.

In addition, the youngest Republicans stand apart in their views on the role of government and the causes of climate change. Gen Z Republicans are much more likely than Republicans in older generations to say government should do more to solve problems. And they are less likely than their older counterparts to attribute the earth’s warming temperatures to natural patterns, as opposed to human activity.

While younger and older Americans differ in many of their views, there are some areas where generation is not as clearly linked with attitudes. When it comes to the merits of having more women running for political office, majorities across generations say this is a good thing for the country. Majorities in each generation also say that, on balance, legal immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S.

This analysis is based on a survey of 920 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 conducted online Sept. 17-Nov. 25, 2018, combined with a nationally representative survey of 10,682 adults ages 18 and older conducted online Sept. 24-Oct. 7, 2018, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel . 3 Findings based on Generation Z combine data from the teens survey with data from the 18- to 21-year-old respondents in the adult survey.

When it comes to views on political issues and the current political climate, younger generations have consistently held more liberal views than older generations in recent years. Today, members of Generation Z hold many similar views to Millennials, and both tend to be more liberal than older generations.

Seven-in-ten Gen Zers say the government should do more to solve problems in this country, while just 29% say the government is doing too many things that are better left to individuals and businesses. Gen Zers are slightly more likely to favor government activism than Millennials, and significantly more likely than older generations: 53% of Gen Xers, 49% of Baby Boomers and 39% of Silents favor government involvement over businesses and individuals.

Among Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party, the generational divides are even starker. Roughly half (52%) of Gen Z Republicans say they think the government should be doing more to solve problems, compared with 38% of Millennial Republicans and 29% of Gen Xers. About a quarter of Republican Baby Boomers (23%) and fewer GOP Silents (12%) believe the government should be doing more.

Among Democrats, however, these generational divides largely disappear. Roughly eight-in-ten Gen Z (81%) and Millennial Democrats (79%) say the government should do more to solve problems, as do about seven-in-ten Democratic Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.

Gen Zers’ views about climate change are virtually identical to those of Millennials and not markedly different from Gen Xers. About half in all three generations say the earth is getting warmer due to human activity. Boomers are somewhat more skeptical of this than Gen Zers or Millennials. Members of the Silent Generation are least likely to say this (38%) and are more likely to say the earth is warming mainly due to natural patterns (28%) than are Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers.

Among Republicans, Gen Z stands out from older generations as the least likely to say the earth is warming because of natural patterns – 18% say this. By comparison, 30% of Millennial, 36% of Gen X and roughly four-in-ten Boomer (42%) and Silent Generation Republicans (41%) say the same. Almost no generation gap exists among Democrats in views on this issue.

When it comes to views of Donald Trump, there are sizable generational divides, particularly among Republicans. Nine-in-ten Republicans in the Silent Generation approve of the job the president is doing, as do 85% of Baby Boomer Republicans and 76% of Gen X Republicans; smaller majorities of GOP Millennials (65%) and Gen Zers (59%) think he’s doing a good job.

Younger generations also have a different view of the U.S. relative to other countries in the world. While pluralities of nearly all generations (with the exception of the Silent Generation) say the U.S. is one of the best countries in the world along with some others, Gen Zers and Millennials are the least likely to say the U.S. is better than all other countries. Only 14% and 13%, respectively, hold this view, compared with one-in-five Gen Xers, 30% of Boomers and 45% of Silents.

Roughly three-in-ten Gen Zers and Millennials say there are other countries that are better than the U.S.

In their views about the general direction of the country, Gen Zers are mostly downbeat, but they’re not alone in that assessment. Among Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers, two-thirds or more say things in this country are generally going in the wrong direction. About six-in-ten Boomers (61%) say the same. Members of the Silent Generation have a less negative view (53% say things are going in the wrong direction).

Today’s 13- to 21-year-olds are only slightly more likely than Millennials to say ordinary citizens can do a lot to influence the government in Washington (53% of Gen Zers say this vs. 46% of Millennials). And their views on this issue don’t differ much from those of Gen Xers, Boomers or Silents (50%, 58% and 58%, respectively, say citizens can have a lot of influence on the government).

Stark generational gaps in views on race

Younger generations have a different perspective than their older counterparts on the treatment of blacks in the United States. Two-thirds of Gen Z (66%) and 62% of Millennials say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the U.S. Fewer Gen Xers (53%), Boomers (49%) and Silents (44%) say this. Roughly half of Silents (44%) say both races are treated about equally, compared with just 28% among Gen Z.

The patterns are similar after controlling for race: Younger generations of white Americans are far more likely than whites in older generations to say blacks are not receiving fair treatment.

Younger generations also have a different viewpoint on the issue of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem as a protest. Majorities among Gen Z (61%) and the Millennial generation (62%) approve of the protests. Smaller shares of Gen Xers (44%) and Baby Boomers (37%) favor these actions. Members of the Silent Generation disapprove of the protests by a more than two-to-one margin (68% disapprove, 29% approve).

Gen Zers and Millennials share similar views about racial and ethnic change in the country. Roughly six-in-ten from each generation say increased racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing for our society. Gen Xers are somewhat less likely to agree (52% say this is a good thing), and older generations are even less likely to view this positively.

Younger Republicans again stand out in this regard. Half of Gen Z Republicans (51%) say increased racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing for the country. This compares with 38% of Millennial, 34% of Gen X, 30% of Boomer and 28% of Silent Generation Republicans. Among Democrats, there is widespread agreement across generations.

Though they differ in their views over the changing racial and ethnic makeup of the country, across generations most Americans agree about the impact that legal immigrants have on society. On balance, all generations see legal immigration as more positive than negative. Across most generations, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say legal immigrants are having a positive impact. However, within Gen Z there is no partisan gap on this issue.

When it comes to views about how careful people should be in using potentially offensive language, members of Gen Z are divided over whether people need to be more careful or if concerns about political correctness have gone too far. Some 46% of Gen Zers say people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds, while 53% say too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.

Gen Zers’ views are only modestly different from those of Millennials and Gen Xers on this topic: 39% and 38%, respectively, say people need to be more careful about the language they use, while about six-in-ten say people are too easily offended these days. Interestingly, members of the Silent Generation are closer to members of Gen Z in their views on this topic than they are to Boomers, Gen Xers or Millennials.

Since they first entered adulthood, Millennials have been at the leading edge of changing views on same-sex marriage. In 2014, when a narrow majority of all adults (52%) said they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, 67% of Millennials held that view. Today, members of Generation Z are just as likely as Millennials to say allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry has been a good thing for the country (48% of Gen Zers and 47% of Millennials hold this view). One-third of Gen Xers say this is a good thing for the country, as do 27% of Baby Boomers. Members of the Silent Generation are the least enthusiastic (18% say this is a good thing).

Relatively few Gen Zers or Millennials (15%) say same-sex marriage is a bad thing for society. Boomers and Silents are much more likely to view this change negatively (32% and 43%, respectively, say this is a bad thing). Across generations, about four-in-ten say allowing gays and lesbians to marry hasn’t made much of a difference for the U.S.

In other ways, too, Gen Zers and Millennials are similar in their openness to changes that are affecting the institutions of marriage and family. Roughly half (53%) from each generation say interracial marriage is a good thing for our society. Gen Xers are somewhat less likely to agree (41% say this is a good thing), and older generations are much less likely to view interracial marriage positively. Relatively few across generations say this trend is bad for society; majorities of Silents (66%) and Boomers (60%) say it doesn’t make much difference, as do 53% of Xers.

When it comes to couples living together without being married, roughly two-thirds of each generation (with the exception of Silents) say this doesn’t make much of a difference for society. About one-in-five Gen Zers and Millennials say cohabitation is a good thing for society – higher than the shares for older generations. Fully 41% of Silents say this is bad thing for the country, as do about a quarter of Boomers.

Compared with their views on cohabitation, the youngest generations have a more negative assessment of the impact of single women raising children: 35% among Gen Z and 36% of Millennials say this is a bad thing for society; roughly four-in-ten Gen Xers and Boomers and 48% of Silents say the same. About half of Gen Zers and Millennials say this doesn’t make much difference for society, while relatively few (15%) view it as a good thing.

Across generations, majorities say financial and child care responsibilities should be shared

In their views about gender roles within couples, members of Generation Z are virtually identical to Millennials and Gen Xers and quite similar to Baby Boomers. Large majorities in all four groups say that, in households with a mother and a father, the responsibility for providing for the family financially should be shared equally. About one-in-five Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers – and a quarter of Boomers – say this responsibility should fall primarily on the fathers. Very few say mothers should be mostly responsible for this. Silents are the outliers on this issue: 40% say fathers should be mostly responsible for providing for their families financially, while 58% say this responsibility should be shared between mothers and fathers.

For the most part, there are no notable gender gaps in views on this issue; the Silent Generation is the exception. Among Gen Zers, Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers, male and female respondents are largely in agreement that mothers and fathers should share family financial responsibility. Among members of the Silent Generation, roughly half of men (49%) but 33% of women say fathers should be mostly responsible for providing for the family financially.

Large majorities (84% or more) across generations say that responsibility for taking care of children should be shared by mothers and fathers in households with two parents. Some 13% among Gen Z say this responsibility should fall mainly to mothers; similar shares of each of the other generations say the same. Very few say raising children should fall mostly to dads. Male and female respondents across generations have similar views on this issue.

Widespread enthusiasm across generations for more women entering politics

A majority of Americans, regardless of generation, view the increasing number of women running for public office as a positive change for our society. Roughly two-thirds of Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers say this is a good thing, as do 61% of Boomers and 55% of Silents. About four-in-ten in the Silent Generation (39%) say this trend doesn’t make much difference for society, somewhat higher than the share among the three youngest generations (roughly three-in-ten).

There are significant gender gaps on this question, with female respondents expressing much more enthusiasm about the growing number of women running for office in each generation except the Silents. Among Gen Zers, 76% of young women, versus 57% of young men, say the fact that more women are running for office is a good thing for society. The pattern is similar for Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers. However, among Silents, roughly equal shares of men (57%) and women (54%) say this is a good thing.

The recognition of people who don’t identify as a man or a woman has garnered increased attention amid changing laws concerning gender options on official documents and growing usage of gender-neutral pronouns .

There are stark generational differences in views on these issues. Generation Z is the most likely of the five generations to say that when a form or online profile asks about a person’s gender it should include options other than “man” and “woman”; a 59% majority of Gen Zers say this. Half of Millennials say forms or online profiles should include additional gender options, as do about four-in-ten Gen Xers (40%) and Boomers (37%) and roughly a third of those in the Silent Generation (32%).

These views vary widely along partisan lines, with generational differences evident within each party coalition, but sharpest among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. About four-in-ten Republican Gen Zers (41%) think forms should include other gender options, compared with 27% of Republican Millennials, 17% of GOP Gen Xers and Boomers and 16% of Republican Silents. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, half or more in all generations say this, including 71% of Gen Zers and 55% of Silents.

Gen Zers and Millennials have similar views on treatment of people who don’t identify as a man or woman

When it comes to how accepting society in general is of people who don’t identify as either a man or a woman, the views of Gen Zers and Millennials differ from those of older generations. Roughly half of Gen Zers (50%) and Millennials (47%) think that society is not accepting enough. Smaller shares of Gen Xers (39%), Boomers (36%) and those in the Silent Generation (32%) say the same.

A plurality of the Silent Generation (41%) say society is too accepting of people who don’t identify as a man or woman. Across all generations, roughly a quarter say society’s acceptance level is about right.

Again, there are large partisan gaps on this question, and Gen Z Republicans stand apart to some extent from other generations of Republicans in their views. Among Republicans, about three-in-ten Gen Zers (28%) say that society is not accepting enough of people who don’t identify as a man or woman, compared with 20% of Millennials, 15% of Gen Xers, 13% of Boomers and 11% of Silents. Democrats vary little by generation in shares holding this view.

Generations differ in their familiarity and comfort with using gender-neutral pronouns

Gen Zers and Millennials are much more familiar than their elders with the idea that some people may prefer gender-neutral pronouns: 74% of Gen Zers and 69% of Millennials say they have heard “a lot” or “a little” about people preferring that others use gender-neutral pronouns such as “they” instead of “he” or “she” when referring to them, with about three-in-ten saying they have heard a lot about this. Most Gen Xers (62%) also have heard a lot or a little about people preferring gender-neutral pronouns.

There is less awareness of this among older generations. Still, half of Boomers and 45% of Silents say they have heard at least a little about gender-neutral pronouns.

Gen Zers are also the most likely among the five generations to say they personally know someone who goes by gender-neutral pronouns, with 35% saying so, compared with 25% of Millennials. Each of these younger generations is more likely than Gen Xers (16%), Boomers (12%) and Silents (7%) to say they personally know someone who prefers that others use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to them. This generational pattern is evident among both Democrats and Republicans.

In addition to their greater familiarity with gender-neutral pronouns, Gen Zers and Millennials express somewhat higher levels of comfort with using gender-neutral pronouns, though generational differences on this question are more modest. Majorities of Gen Zers (57%) and Millennials (59%) say they would feel “very” or “somewhat” comfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone if asked to do so, including about three-in-ten (32% of Gen Zers, 31% of Millennials) who say they would be very comfortable doing this. By comparison, Gen Xers and Boomers are evenly divided: About as many say they would feel at least somewhat comfortable (49% and 50%, respectively) as say they would be uncomfortable.

Silents are the only group in which more say they would feel uncomfortable (59%) than say they would feel comfortable (39%) using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone.

There are wide party gaps on this measure across generations. Within each generation, Democrats come down on the side of feeling comfortable, rather than uncomfortable, using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone if asked to do so. In contrast, for each generation of Republicans, majorities say they would feel uncomfortable doing this.

Across generations, knowing someone who goes by gender-neutral pronouns is linked to comfort levels in using these pronouns. Three-quarters of Millennials and about two-thirds of Gen Zers, Gen Xers and Boomers who personally know someone who goes by gender-neutral pronouns say they would feel very or somewhat comfortable referring to someone with a gender-neutral pronoun. Those who don’t know someone are roughly 20 percentage points less likely to say the same (51% of Gen Zers, 54% of Millennials, 46% of Gen Xers and 48% of Boomers who don’t know someone say this). 4

• A previous Pew Research Center analysis of Generation Z (previously referred to as the post-Millennial generation), which examined the generation’s demographic characteristics based on Census Bureau data, looked at those ages 6 to 21 in 2018. The survey methodology used in the current study does not include respondents younger than 13. In this analysis, teens’ (ages 13 to 17) responses were combined with those of adults ages 18 to 21 to form Generation Z. ↩
• This analysis does not report data on the Greatest Generation (those born before 1928) due to their small sample size. ↩
• For more details, see the Methodology section of the report. ↩
• Sample size limitations prevent comparisons among Silents by whether or not they know someone who goes by gender-neutral pronouns. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Donald Trump
• Generation Z
• Generations, Age & Politics
• Millennials

The Political Values of Harris and Trump Supporters

As robert f. kennedy jr. exits, a look at who supported him in the 2024 presidential race, black voters support harris over trump and kennedy by a wide margin, harris energizes democrats in transformed presidential race, amid doubts about biden’s mental sharpness, trump leads presidential race, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 38

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Try AI-powered search

• Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich

Millennials were poorer at this stage in their lives. So were baby-boomers

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

G eneration Z is taking over. In the rich world there are at least 250m people born between 1997 and 2012. About half are now in a job. In the average American workplace , the number of Gen Z-ers (sometimes also known as “Zoomers”) working full-time is about to surpass the number of full-time baby-boomers, those born from 1945 to 1964, whose careers are winding down (see chart 1). America now has more than 6,000 Zoomer chief executives and 1,000 Zoomer politicians. As the generation becomes more influential, companies, governments and investors need to understand it.

Pundits produce a lot of fluff about the cohort . Recent “research” from Frito-Lay, a crisp-maker, finds that Gen Z-ers have a strong preference for “snacks that leave remnants on their fingers”, such as cheese dust. Yet different generations also display deeper differences, in part shaped by the economic context in which they grow up. Germans who reached adulthood during the high-inflation 1920s came to detest rising prices. Americans who lived through the Depression tended to avoid investing in the stockmarket.

Many argue that Gen Z is defined by its anxiety. Such worriers include Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, whose new book, “ The Anxious Generation ”, is making waves. In some ways, Gen Z-ers are unusual. Young people today are less likely to form relationships than those of yesteryear. They are more likely to be depressed or say they were assigned the wrong sex at birth. They are less likely to drink, have sex, be in a relationship—indeed to do anything exciting. Americans aged between 15 and 24 spend just 38 minutes a day socialising in person on average, down from almost an hour in the 2000s, according to official data. Mr Haidt lays the blame on smartphones, and the social media they enable.

His book has provoked an enormous reaction. On April 10th Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the governor of Arkansas, echoed Mr Haidt’s arguments as she outlined plans to regulate children’s use of smartphones and social media. Britain’s government is considering similar measures. But not everyone agrees with Mr Haidt’s thesis. And the pushing and shoving over Gen Z’s anxiety has obscured another way in which the cohort is distinct. In financial terms, Gen Z is doing extraordinarily well. This, in turn, is changing its relationship with work.

Consider the group that preceded Gen Z: millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1996. Many entered the workforce at a time when the world was reeling from the global financial crisis of 2007-09, during which young people suffered disproportionately. In 2012-14 more than half of Spanish youngsters who wanted a job could not find one. Greece’s youth-unemployment rate was even higher. Britney Spears’s “Work Bitch”, a popular song released in 2013, had an uncompromising message for young millennials: if you want good things, you have to slog.

Gen Z-ers who have left education face very different circumstances. Youth unemployment across the rich world—at about 13%—has not been this low since 1991 (see chart 2). Greece’s youth-unemployment rate has fallen by half from its peak. Hoteliers in Kalamata, a tourist destination, complain about a labour shortage, something unthinkable just a few years ago. Popular songs reflect the zeitgeist. In 2022 the protagonist in a Beyoncé song boasted, “I just quit my job”. Olivia Rodrigo, a 21-year-old singer popular with American Gen Z-ers, complains that a former love interest’s “career is really taking off”.

Many have chosen to study subjects that help them find work. In Britain and America Gen Z-ers are avoiding the humanities, and are going instead for more obviously useful things like economics and engineering. Vocational qualifications are also increasingly popular. Young people then go on to benefit from tight labour markets. Like Beyoncé’s protagonist, they can quit their job and find another one if they want more money.

In America hourly pay growth among 16- to 24-year-olds recently hit 13% year on year, compared with 6% for workers aged 25 to 54. This was the highest “young person premium” since reliable data began (see chart 3). In Britain, where youth pay is measured differently, the average hourly pay of people aged 18-21 rose by an astonishing 15% last year, outstripping pay rises among other age groups by an unusually wide margin. In New Zealand the average hourly pay of people aged 20-24 increased by 10%, compared with an average of 6%.

Strong wage growth boosts family incomes. A new paper by Kevin Corinth of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank, and Jeff Larrimore of the Federal Reserve assesses Americans’ household income by generation, after accounting for taxes, government transfers and inflation (see chart 4). Millennials were somewhat better off than Gen X—those born between 1965 and 1980—when they were the same age. Zoomers, however, are much better off than millennials were at the same age. The typical 25-year-old Gen Z-er has an annual household income of over $40,000, more than 50% above baby-boomers at the same age.

Gen Z’s economic power was on display at a recent concert by Ms Rodrigo in New York. The mostly female teenagers and 20-somethings in attendance had paid hundreds of dollars for a ticket. Queues for merchandise stalls, selling $50 t -shirts, stretched around the arena. Ms Rodrigo will have no trouble shifting merchandise in other parts of the world, as her tour moves across the Atlantic. That is in part because Gen Z-ers who have entered the workplace are earning good money throughout the rich world. In 2007 the average net income of French people aged 16-24 was 87% of the overall average. Now it is equal to 92%. In a few places, including Croatia and Slovenia, Gen Z-ers are now bringing in as much as the average.

Some Gen Z-ers protest, claiming that higher incomes are a mirage because they do not account for the exploding cost of college and housing. After all, global house prices are near all-time highs, and graduates have more debt than before. In reality, though, Gen Z-ers are coping because they earn so much. In 2022 Americans under 25 spent 43% of their post-tax income on housing and education, including interest on debt from college—slightly below the average for under-25s from 1989 to 2019. Bolstered by high incomes, American Zoomers’ home-ownership rates are higher than millennials’ at the same age (even if they are lower than previous generations’).

What does this wealth mean? It can seem as if millennials grew up thinking a job was a privilege, and acted accordingly. They are deferential to bosses and eager to please. Zoomers, by contrast, have grown up believing that a job is basically a right, meaning they have a different attitude to work. Last year Gen Z-ers boasted about “quiet quitting”, where they put in just enough effort not to be fired. Others talk of “bare minimum Monday”. The “girlboss” archetype, who seeks to wrestle corporate control away from domineering men, appeals to millennial women. Gen Z ones are more likely to discuss the idea of being “snail girls”, who take things slowly and prioritise self-care.

The data support the memes. In 2022 Americans aged between 15 and 24 spent 25% less time on “working and work-related activities” than in 2007. A new paper published by the IMF analyses the number of hours that people say they would like to work. Not long ago young people wanted to work a lot more than older people. Now they want to work less. According to analysis by Jean Twenge of San Diego State University, the share of American 12th-graders (aged 17 or 18) who see work as a “central part of life” has dropped sharply.

Another consequence is that Gen Z-ers are less likely to be entrepreneurs. We estimate that just 1.1% of 20-somethings in the EU run a business that employs someone else—and in recent years the share has drifted down. In the late 2000s more than 1% of the world’s billionaires, as measured by Forbes , a magazine, were millennials. Back then pundits obsessed over ultra-young tech founders, such as Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Patrick Collison (Stripe) and Evan Spiegel (Snapchat). Today, by contrast, less than 0.5% on the Forbes list are Zoomers. Who can name a famous Gen Z startup founder?

Gen Z-ers are also producing fewer innovations. According to Russell Funk of the University of Minnesota, young people are less likely to file patents than they were in the recent past. Or consider the Billboard Hot 100, measuring America’s most popular songs. In 2008, 42% of hits were sung by millennials; 15 years later only 29% were sung by Gen Z-ers. Taylor Swift, the world’s most popular singer-songwriter, titled her most famous album “1989”, after the year of her birth. The world is still waiting for someone to produce “2004”.

How long will Generation Z’s economic advantage last? A recession would hit young people harder than others, as recessions always do. Artificial intelligence could destabilise the global economy, even if youngsters may in time be better placed to benefit from the disruption. For now, though, Generation Z has a lot to be happy about. Between numbers at Madison Square Garden, Olivia Rodrigo sits at the piano and counsels her fans to be thankful for all that they have. “Growing up is fucking awesome,” she says. “You have all the time to do all the things you want to do.” The time and the money. ■

For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to  Money Talks , our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.

Explore more

This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Winning the generation game”

Finance & economics April 20th 2024

• Frozen Russian assets will soon pay for Ukraine’s war
• Even without war in the Gulf, pricier petrol is here to stay
• Citigroup, Wall Street’s biggest loser, is at last on the up
• China’s better economic growth hides reasons to worry
• Why the stockmarket is disappearing
• Can the IMF solve the poor world’s debt crisis?

From the April 20th 2024 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

More from Finance & economics

Jerome Powell (almost) declares victory over inflation

The Federal Reserve chairman strikes a notably doveish tone

Investors should avoid a new generation of rip-off ETFs

Some proposals may even be a risk to financial stability

Why investors are not buying Europe’s revival

Even though the continent’s stocks are in a “sweet spot”

America’s recession signals are flashing red. Don’t believe them

We assess a range of measures

America’s anti-price-gouging laws are too minor to be communist

No matter what critics of Kamala Harris allege

Why don’t women use artificial intelligence?

Even when in the same jobs, men are much more likely to turn to the tech

• Resource Library

2024 Voices of Gen Z Study

Gen Z feels optimistic about the future. How do we best prepare them for it?

The Walton Family Foundation and Gallup’s new 2024 Voices of Gen Z Study builds on one of the largest and most comprehensive national research surveys tracking the sentiments and attitudes of Gen Z. The latest research focuses on Gen Z’s views about themselves, their schools, and their future prospects.

This year’s findings show that just over half (51%) of Gen Z believe they are thriving in their lives.

The survey reveals a generation deeply committed to meaningful engagement in both work and school, with a growing desire to contribute to their communities and pursue their passions. They are driven by a quest for meaningful relationships, a strong sense of community, and a purposeful life.

Key areas for improvement identified by Gen Z include increasing hands-on learning opportunities, expanding mental health support, and providing greater exposure to diverse post-secondary pathways and practical skills.

While Gen Z remains optimistic about their future, too many feel underprepared for college and careers. They want an education that provides real-world experiences. Mental health—which is closely related to their overall life satisfaction and future outlook—also continues to pose a significant challenge for many Gen Zers. Only 21% report having “excellent” mental health, while more say their mental health is only fair (24%) or poor (7%).

Explore the latest findings to learn how we can better support Gen Z in achieving their goals and unlocking their full potential.

The vast majority of gen zers believe they have a great future ahead of them., however, they are less confident in their preparedness for the future. .

Only half of Gen Z feel prepared for the future. Students whose school offers opportunities to learn skills relevant to a job they want or how to interview are more likely to feel prepared to succeed in their future careers.

Despite that, only 35% of K-12 students feel they are learning skills relevant to their future careers and just 23% have opportunities to work on projects related to jobs they want. 

Beyond feeling unprepared for their future careers, many Gen Zers are also worried about their ability to manage their “adult” lives. Less than half of Gen Z think they will be prepared to manage their money and finances (46%) or buy a home (31%). 

Harnessing Gen Z’s optimism requires targeted improvements that prepare them for future success. By creating educational programs that support Gen Z in connecting to mentors in their community, developing career-relevant skills and building readiness for their adult lives, we can better equip Gen Z to succeed.

Fostering engagement in school and work is critical to ensuring Gen Z remains optimistic about the future.

Gen Z is looking for supportive relationships with their teachers and a curriculum that interests them. 

Engagement in school continues to be a key predictor of Gen Z’s future outlook and life satisfaction. Students who find their subjects interesting and challenging report higher engagement and a more positive perspective on their lives. However, recent data shows a decline in this type of engagement: 

This is a 10% drop from 2023.

This is an 8% drop from last year.

The relationships between students and their teachers play a significant role in boosting engagement. Over 70% of Gen Z identify their best teachers as those who care about them as individuals, while 63% feel most excited about learning when their teachers are passionate about their subjects. 

Ultimately, focusing on developing meaningful relationships with mentors and role models and creating a strong sense of belonging and community in the classroom is key to improving Gen Z’s engagement and overall well-being.

Hands-on learning can help students bridge the gap between school and career.

Connecting classroom learning to practical experiences is essential..

The key to truly understanding concepts is applying them to real life. Hands-on learning and real-world applications not only prepare Gen Z students for college and the workforce but also empower them to make meaningful contributions to their communities.

Hands-on activities include simulations, demonstrations, and experiments that make learning interactive.

Schools can increase engagement with curriculum that is relevant to the real world and the lives of students.

Despite this, only 35% of K-12 students feel they are acquiring skills relevant to their future careers. Investing in educational programs that focus on practical skills and career readiness can significantly enhance student engagement and ensure a smoother transition from K-12 to the next stages of their lives.

College remains the primary post-graduation pathway for Gen Z.

A lack of exposure is keeping students from exploring pathways outside of college..

While college remains a popular path, many Gen Zers feel unprepared to succeed in college. Others are interested in exploring other paths that align with their passions and goals.

Two-thirds of Gen Z report frequent discussions with adults about attending college.

Just 18% of students are aware of opportunities like apprenticeships and vocational training.

Among Gen Z adults, only one in four feel very prepared to succeed in their careers.

Furthermore, many Gen Z students have limited knowledge of non-college pathways. Fewer than one in four high schoolers has had many conversations about non-college pathways, such as apprenticeships and internships. Raising awareness about non-college pathways can help more students discover meaningful career options that match their interests and skills.

Gen Z is reimagining what success in life looks like.

Their definition of success is largely driven by the quality of their relationships and a sense of purpose. .

Gen Z defines a “great life” as one where they are happy, can live comfortably and have close relationships with their friends and families.  

Wealth, buying a house, and having children are far less important for a great life.

66% of Gen Z feel a sense of connection with something larger than themselves.

In terms of their careers, Gen Z values jobs that allow them to live comfortably (77%) and pursue their passions (70%) over becoming wealthy (31%) or managers (12%). Combined, the findings indicate a desire for balance between reaching financial stability and maintaining personal fulfillment and strong relationships. 

We can better support Gen Zers to lead happy and fulfilling lives by helping them to connect with one another, and discover and develop their purpose and passions.

Latest Resources

Gen Zers to Their Parents: When We Are Upset, Just Listen

New research developed in partnership with psychologist Dr. Lisa Damour reveals that most young people experience happiness on a daily basis, but many also feel stress, anxiety and sadness. According to the findings, most Gen Z youth want space and a listening ear when experiencing intense emotions.

Report Card 2024: New Perspectives from Students on U.S. Schools

The Walton Family Foundation partnered with Gallup to survey students across the country for the second year in a row. According to students, schools have room to grow in areas like making learning exciting for students and preparing them for their future careers.

Pilot AI Tool Generates Math Hints to Help Students Solve Problems

A new AI Pilot tool, The Math Hint Generator Chatbot demo, serves as a virtual tutor to help kids “get unstuck.”

Featured Webcast

The State of Pastors Summit

Replay the free webcast to explore six trends shaping the future of pastoral leadership. Discover how pastors are doing, along with brand new findings from Barna's brand new research report, The State of Pastors, Volume 2. Watch the replay for free today.

Featured Report

The State of Pastors, Volume 2

This report takes an in-depth look at how pastors are navigating post-pandemic life and ministry, focusing on self-leadership, church leadership and cultural leadership.

Featured Podcast

The Resilient Pastor

Join pastors Glenn Packiam, Rich Villodas and Sharon Hodde Miller as they invite leaders to think out loud together about the challenges and opportunities of leading a church in a rapidly changing world. In each episode, they will have a conversation about church leadership and the challenges pastors are facing. Then, they’ll share a conversation with a pastor, church leader, thinker or theologian about the health of the pastor, the state of the church and what it looks like to love well and lead faithfully.

Featured Service

Custom Research with Barna

Partner with Barna on customized research projects. Gain knowledge to understand the unique needs of your ministry.

Get full access to Barna insights, research & more

Feb 6, 2018

Gen Z: Your Questions Answered

• X, formerly Twitter

Recently, Barna released a landmark study of Gen Z , in partnership with Impact 360 Institute , providing a snapshot of the ways Gen Z sees the world, their faith (or lack thereof) and our culture. The research was unveiled at a live event on January 23rd in Atlanta, Georgia, accompanied by a national webcast. Throughout the event, as a team of experts and youth practitioners unpacked the data, we asked for viewers to submit their own questions about Gen Z via twitter using the hashtag #whoisgenz. We received an overwhelming response and weren’t able to get to all of them at the time. So, whether you missed the livestream altogether ( watch the replay here before it expires on Feb 10) or are simply still hoping for a response, we’ve decided to address some of your most common and burning questions about the next, next generation right here. But this is just a sneak peek at the larger research study, which is now available for purchase .

Gen Z Vol. 1

The culture, beliefs and motivations shaping the next generation

1. Who counts as Gen Z? Are the youngest of Gen Z in the study? Barna has been studying generations for three decades, beginning with Boomers (born 1946 to 1964), then focusing on Gen X (born 1965 to 1983) and Millennials (born 1984 to 1998). We’re now turning our attention to the next generation: Gen Z. Barna defines this new generation as those born between 1999 to 2015, but for the purpose of this study only teenagers (those between the ages of 13 and 18) were included. Because of that, the results are reflective only of the leading edge of Gen Z. As a whole, their views may shift as younger members of the generation come of age, but for now, this study represents the views of Gen Z teenagers in America.

Another common question we’ve received is how to distinguish between generational and life-stage differences when interpreting broader trends. The truth is that the research will reveal both . Priorities change as one advances through life. For instance, education and friendships tend to be more important at a younger age, and career and family become more important as Americans head into adulthood, with retirement and leisure often becoming central at an older age. So, some of the trends we are seeing may simply be a result of Gen Z’s early life stage. However, this is the first picture of this new generation—and we are surprised by how fast things are changing. The world in which Gen Z are coming of age is vastly different from that of, say, Boomers. Technological advancements, demographic changes, an increasingly post-Christian environment and political realities have contributed to radical cultural shifts in the last 50 years, and the findings reflect that.

2. What were the main ethnic differences among Gen Z? Gen Z is the most diverse generation we’ve observed in American history. Given this, a few key differences are evident between and among ethnic groups. For instance, Gen Z racial minorities are substantially more likely than white teens to consider their race or ethnicity important to their sense of self. When it comes to perceptions of the church, African American and Hispanic teens are more likely to choose (from a number of options) church-themed activities or icons that have a more communal feel and greater diversity as opposed to white teens. Also, white teens—who tend to benefit from households of greater wealth and comfort, on average—are more likely than black and Hispanic young people to say they are not excited to grow up (32% vs. 15% black teens, 26% Hispanic teens). White and black teens are more likely than Hispanic young people to report often interacting with people who are different from them (43% white, 38% black vs. 29% Hispanic teens), which black teenagers especially enjoy (28% vs. 15% white, 21% Hispanic teens strongly agree they enjoy spending time with people who are different from them).

3. What were the differences between Christian and non-Christian Gen Z? One of the main findings from the study is that the problem of evil is a major barrier to faith for non-Christian teens (29%). Other reasons nonbelievers provide as common barriers to faith include “Christians are hypocrites” (23%), “I believe science refutes too much of the Bible” (20%), “I don’t believe in fairy tales” (19%), “there are too many injustices in the history of Christianity” (15%), “I used to go to church but it’s just not important to me anymore” (12%) “I had a bad experience at church / with a Christian” (6%). Interestingly though, the perceived conflict between science and Christianity is also a factor for Christian teens. More than one third of engaged Christian teens (37%) and more than half of churchgoing teens (53%) say that the church seems to reject much of what science tells us about the world.

When it comes to church specifically, non-Christians and self-identified Christians have different reasons for why they believe it is unimportant. Among those who say attending church is not important to them, three out of five Christian teens say “I find God elsewhere” (61%), while about the same proportion of non-Christians says “church is not relevant to me personally” (64%). The non-Christians’ most popular answer makes sense (they’re not Christians, after all), but Christians’ reasoning is an indicator that at least some churches are not helping to facilitate teens’ transformative connection with God.

4. It appears that Gen Z are de-prioritizing family. Why is this the case? One of the biggest and most surprising shifts is that family is not a major priority for Gen Z. For instance, personal achievement, whether educational or professional (43%), and hobbies and pastimes (42%) are more central to Gen Z’s identity than family background / upbringing (34%). By comparison, all other generations rank family at the top.  Religious belief is also less influential, having dropped down the rankings compared to other generations. Another interesting finding is that two-thirds of Gen Z want to finish their education (66%), start a career (66%) and become financially independent (65%) by age 30, while only one in five wants to get married by then (20%). However, they do still seem to value their family’s authority or insight: When asked who they most look up to as a role model, half say their parents and one in seven says another family member. Also, the current life-stage of teenagers must be taken into account, which means that marriage and children are likely a distant thought. That said, it is a diminished priority for Gen Z, even compared to Millennials. It’s not yet clear if this refocusing of identity away from family is the continuation of a descending generational trend, or if Gen Z will gain a deeper appreciation for the influence of their family of origin as they leave the nest. Time will tell.

5. How can the church effectively disciple this generation? As we saw above, Gen Z are incredibly career-driven and success-oriented. Achievement is big for Gen Z, both to their sense of self and for their ultimate goals, particularly their education, career and achieving financial independence. Barna believes this emphasis on career presents an opportunity for the church to engage in what could be called “vocational discipleship.” This means teaching young people about the integration of faith and occupation, helping them to better understand the concept of calling and emphasizing the meaning and theological significance of work (not just their potential for professional or financial success). Not every church member has children, but almost every church has a children’s ministry. Almost every church member has a job, but very few churches have a faith and work ministry. The church has an opportunity to reach this next generation of teenagers through integrating career, work and calling into their discipleship efforts.

Comment on this research and follow our work: Twitter:  @davidkinnaman |  @barnagroup Facebook:  Barna Group

Photo by  Cole Hutson  on  Unsplash

About the Research

Qualitative Barna conducted a total of four focus groups in August 2016 with U.S. teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17. Two focus groups were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia, on August 11, and two sessions were conducted in Los Angeles, California, on August 17.

Quantitative Two nationally representative studies of teens were conducted. The first was conducted using an online consumer panel November 4–16, 2016, and included 1,490 U.S. teenagers 13 to 18 years old. The second was conducted July 7–18, 2017, and also used an online consumer panel, which included 507 U.S. teenagers 13 to 18 years old. The data from both surveys were minimally weighted to known U.S. Census data in order to be representative of ethnicity, gender, age and region.

Three hundred thirty-five U.S. Protestant youth pastors were also interviewed. Members of Barna’s pastor panel who identify as the person who has direct responsibility for the church’s ministry to middle- or high-school students were invited to participate in an online survey, conducted November 16, 2016–January 17, 2017.’

Four hundred and three engaged Christian parents were also surveyed. To qualify for participation, parents had to 1) identify as Christian, 2) be the parent of a child ages 13 to 19, 3) have attended a church service in the past month and 4) qualify as an “engaged Christian” under the definition designed for this study (see below). The survey was conducted using an online consumer panel November 8–16, 2016.

One nationally representative study of 1,517 U.S. adults ages 19 and older was conducted using an online panel November 4–16, 2016. The data were minimally weighted to known U.S. Census data in order to be representative of ethnicity, gender, age and region.

GEN Z were born 1999 to 2015. (Only teens 13 to 18 are included in this study.) MILLENNIALS were born 1984 to 1998. GEN X were born 1965 to 1983. BOOMERS were born 1946 to 1964. ELDERS were born before 1946.

CHURCHED CHRISTIANS identify as Christian and have attended church within the past six months, but do not qualify as engaged under the definition below.

ENGAGED CHRISTIANS identify as Christian, have attended church within the past six months and strongly agree with the each of the following:

• The Bible is the inspired word of God and contains truth about the world.
• I have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in my life today.
• I engage with my church in more ways than just attending services.
• I believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised from the dead to conquer sin and death.

NO FAITH identify as agnostic, atheist or “none of the above.”

© Barna Group, 2018.

About Barna

Since 1984, Barna Group has conducted more than two million interviews over the course of thousands of studies and has become a go-to source for insights about faith, culture, leadership, vocation and generations. Barna is a private, non-partisan, for-profit organization.

Related Posts

New Data on Gen Z—Perceptions of Pressure, Anxiety and Empowerment

• Generations

Actions, Invitations, Storytelling—How Gen Z Approaches Evangelism

Half of Gen Z Feel Bad About the Amount of Time Spent on Screens

Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z

From the Archives

Lead with Insight

Strengthen your message, train your team and grow your church with cultural insights and practical resources, all in one place.

Get Barna in your inbox

Subscribe to Barna’s free newsletters for the latest data and insights to navigate today’s most complex issues.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Generation Z (Gen Z)?

Understanding gen z.

• Gen Z vs. Other Generations
• Gen Z’s Financial Situation
• Retirement Savings

Financial Planning for Gen Z

The bottom line, generation z (gen z): definition, birth years, and demographics.

Karon Warren has 20+ years of experience researching and writing about banking, mortgages, credit cards, savings, and other personal finance topics.

Investopedia / Yurle Villegas

Generation Z is the name given to the generation of people born between 1997 and 2012. It's commonly referred to as "Gen Z," for short. This generation comes after Millennials and before Generation Alpha . The oldest members of Gen Z are reaching their late-20s, with many now out of college, getting married, and starting families, while the youngest may be as young as 12.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, members of Gen Z face a future more uncertain than many previous generations encountered.  

Key Takeways

• Generation Z (Gen Z) refers to the generation of Americans born from 1997 to 2012.
• The oldest members of Gen Z are starting their post-education years, with new careers and, possibly, families; the youngest are 12. 
• Though older Gen Zers have firm plans for retirement, they haven’t gone very far in starting their savings for it.

Gen Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse generation of Americans yet. According to the Pew Research Center, non-Hispanic White Gen Zers hold a very slim majority at 52%. Hispanics make up 25% of Gen Z, while Black Gen Zers make up 14%, and 6% are Asian. The remaining 5% are a different race or two or more races. The majority of Gen Z members are not immigrants: Only 6% were born outside the United States.

Though past generations have taken up social issues, Gen Z are more socially minded than previous generations. According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Gen Zers are focused on seven key social issues: healthcare, mental health, higher education, economic security, civic engagement, race equity, and the environment.

Many Gen Zers will soon be ineligible to remain on their parents' health insurance , and they are concerned about how to pay for their own coverage. This issue is further exacerbated by the increase in the number of Gen Zers seeking mental health treatment—37%, according to the American Psychological Association.

Gen Zers also make education a priority. More than half (57%) of those ages 18 to 21 years old were enrolled at either a two- or four-year college. Gen Z members also are more likely to finish high school.  

Members of Gen Z are fighting for social change, racial equity, and protecting the environment in record numbers. Some have elevated their profile to the national level, such as X (formerly Emma) González, a survivor of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, who helped organize the March for Our Lives movement with other survivors. According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 70% of Gen Zers think the government needs to take a more active stance in addressing problems.

Gen Z vs. Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers

The 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers looked at how Gen Z views its finances and retirement prospects compared with millennials , Gen Xers , and baby boomers . Key findings include:

• Almost six in 10 Gen Z workers (59%) said their employment situation has been negatively impacted—primarily due to a reduction in work hours— as a result of the pandemic , which is significantly more than among millennials (51%), Gen Xers (39%), and baby boomers (30%). 
• Baby boomers, Gen Xers, and millennials are significantly more likely than Gen Zers to cite saving for retirement as a financial priority (75%, 65%, 53%, and 33%, respectively). But they are, of course, a lot closer to it—or already there, in the case of many boomers.
• Building emergency savings is a priority for 50% of Gen Xers, 46% of millennials, 42% of Gen Zers, and 36% of baby boomers.  

The percentage of Gen Zers who consider saving for retirement to be a financial priority.

Gen Z’s Financial Situation 

According to the Transamerica survey results, Gen Z currently has little to no financial security. Gen Z workers are more likely to say they are just getting by to cover basic living expenses (50%) and paying off student loans (35%) than older generations. In addition, they have saved just $2,000 in emergency savings, while 30% have dipped into their retirement accounts. Also, approximately one-third of Gen Zers have reduced their day-to-day expenses due to pandemic-related financial strain.  

Retirement Savings 

Even though Gen Zers might be on shaky financial ground at the moment, they have firm plans for retirement. In fact, 70% are saving for retirement through employer-sponsored plans , such as a 401(k) or similar plan, and/or outside the workplace, per the Transamerica survey. Gen Zers also started saving for retirement at age 19, much earlier than millennials (age 25), Gen Xers (30), and baby boomers (35).  

According to the survey, Gen Z members estimate that they will need $500,000 by the time they retire to feel financially secure. However, only 32% have a backup plan if retirement comes unexpectedly.  

Additionally, the 2022 Investopedia Financial Literacy Survey found that younger generations are factoring cryptocurrency into their retirement plans, so understanding cryptocurrency may be extremely important for children.

Because Gen Zers are just moving into the workforce, many don’t have a lot of experience with financial planning . They may know about employer-sponsored plans, but many don’t know much about investment products outside of work, such as bank accounts (savings and money market ), individual retirement accounts (IRAs) , and certificates of deposit (CDs) . In fact, according to the Transamerica survey, only 9% have a “great deal” of understanding of asset-allocation principles as they relate to retirement investing.  

If you belong to Gen Z, here are four steps you can take to help you start down the road to a strong financial future. 

The amount that Gen Zers feel they need to save for a financially secure retirement.

1. Get a comprehensive financial plan

Don’t wait until you are well into your career to seek financial advice for your financial future. If you have a steady job and already are saving for retirement through an employer-sponsored plan, now is the time to seek input on how to maximize your savings. Learn about budgeting —there are great apps for that —and work to build an emergency fund to help you through tough times and keep you from ending up with serious credit card debt if, for example, your car breaks down.

2. Manage your debt

Even for 25-year-old (so the oldest) Gen Zers, purchasing a home may still be some years away. But it's not too soon to get your finances under control , which will help you get a mortgage when the time comes. A good credit rating and a low debt level will help both your current life (hiring managers sometimes check this) and your future ability to get everything from a car loan to, eventually, a mortgage. Work to get your student debt under control and keep credit card debt at a minimum. Learn about debt-to-income (DTI) ratio —a number that will eventually help you get a mortgage (mortgage lenders want your DTI to be 43% or less to qualify for a home loan, per Chase) but that right now can help you gain control of your finances.

Paying off credit cards can give your DTI a big boost, as can paying off any installment loans, such as car loans or student loans. If you’re having trouble paying down your debt, a certified credit counselor can help you develop a plan of action. 

3. Get a head start on college costs 

As college tuition continues to increase, it's important to look for ways to pay for college that won't leave you drowning in debt. Though four-year colleges are considered a primary path to a college degree, there are other, more affordable options that could reduce how much you pay for college. Taking classes online, attending a community or junior college, or opting for a technical school all offer avenues to a secondary education that cost less than traditional four-year schools—or make the first part of a college education cheaper.

Taking time off to work full time and save up for tuition costs is another way to pay for college. You could also apply for the Federal Work-Study program, wherein you can work part time while attending school either part or full time.

Searching for scholarships and grants is another way to pay for college. Don't rely solely on your school's financial aid office to match you with possible scholarships or grants. There are several search engines available to help locate scholarships that you may qualify for to help pay tuition and college costs. These include Fastweb, Mometrix, StudentScholarships.org, Unigo, and Scholly.

4. Get a financial picture from parents 

As you embark on adulthood and begin to take control of your own finances, talk with your parents regarding how to build a secure financial foundation. They can help answer any questions you may have about building up your savings, managing your credit card use, establishing a good credit history, and understanding employer-sponsored retirement accounts and benefits.

If your parents don't have a strong financial history, search for a local banker or financial advisor you can talk with regarding your financial issues and goals. And build your financial expertise by learning on your own.

Who Belongs to Generation Z (Gen Z)?

People born from 1997 to 2012 are considered to be part of Gen Z. That means that the eldest among them will reach a quarter-century of life in 2022.

Do Gen Zers Tend to Be Financially Secure?

Not yet. Fifty percent are making just enough to cover their basic living expenses, while 35% have student loans to pay off. One-third of them report having suffered financially due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Are Gen Zers Saving for Retirement?

Gen Zers are the most retirement-conscious generation ever. A staggering 70% have some sort of retirement plan, whether employer-sponsored or self-administered. Gen Zers started saving for their retirement at age 19. Compare that to millennials (age 25), Gen Xers (age 30), and baby boomers (age 35). Gen Zers anticipate needing to save $500,000 for retirement, however, which may prove to be an underestimate given that financial experts tend to peg the number higher at as much as $2 million .

Gen Z’s oldest members are beginning to move into their post-education years, which brings a wealth of new financial considerations with it. This includes planning for retirement , finding ways to pay for their college education, and setting the stage for a strong financial future, including buying a home. Having a firm financial plan in place can go a long way in helping them achieve their financial goals and provide financial security as they get older.

Pew Research Center. " On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far ."

Pew Research Center. " Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins ."

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. " Social Issues That Matter to Generation Z ."

American Psychological Association. " Gen Z More Likely to Report Mental Health Concerns ."

Rutgers University. " Key Figures of March for Our Lives ."

Pew Research Center. " Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues ."

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. " 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers ," Pages 14 and 16.

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. " 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers ," Page 16.

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. " 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers ," Pages 16 and 17.

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. " 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers ," Page 24.

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. " 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers ," Pages 26 and 27.

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. " 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers ," Page 26.

Chase. " What Is Debt to Income Ratio and Why Is It Important? "

Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. " 21st Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers ," Pages 24 and 26.

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy

Generation Z and the Future of Faith in America

March 24, 2022 | Daniel A. Cox

Acknowledgments

The Survey Center on American Life of the American Enterprise Institute is grateful to the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation for its generous support of the American National Family Life Survey.

In addition, the author would like to thank Beatrice Lee, Dana Popky, and Grace Burns for their research assistance and support with the design of the report figures; Sarah Burns and Josh Delk for their strategic insights and communications support; Abigail Guidera for her detailed oversight and administrative assistance; Sarah Bowe for her careful and efficient editing; and Danielle Curran for her design and aesthetic expertise.

The story of religious change in America, especially religious disaffiliation, is often cast as the result of independent decisions made by a rising generation living by a different set of values. [1] But new evidence paints a much more complicated picture than the traditional narrative of generationally driven disaffiliation. Young adults today have had entirely different religious and social experiences than previous generations did. The parents of millennials and Generation Z did less to encourage regular participation in formal worship services and model religious behaviors in their children than had previous generations. Many childhood religious activities that were once common, such as saying grace, have become more of the exception than the norm.

We have long known the importance of formative religious experiences in setting the trajectory of faith commitments throughout life. For as long as we have been able to measure religious commitments, childhood religious experiences have strongly predicted adult religiosity. [2] They still do. If someone had robust religious experiences growing up, they are likely to maintain those beliefs and practices into adulthood. [3] Without robust religious experiences to draw on, Americans feel less connected to the traditions and beliefs of their parents’ faith.

There is little evidence to suggest that Americans who have disaffiliated will ever return. First, the age at which Americans choose to give up their families’ religion—most well before they turn 18—suggests that they have not established a deeply rooted commitment to a set of religious beliefs and practices. Disaffiliated Americans express significant skepticism about the societal benefits of religion, even more than those who have never identified with a religious tradition. They also strongly disagree with the majority of religious Americans, who believe in the importance of raising children in a religious faith. Moreover, having children does not appear to affect religious involvement. Unaffiliated parents are not any more likely to be religiously active than those without children, and most are unconvinced that religion serves as an important source of moral instruction.

Religious participation has typically been tightly connected to the timeline of important life events, such as getting married and having children. [4] These events and experiences can serve as crucial opportunities for those who have left their childhood faith to reconnect to a religious community. But declining confidence in organized religion and a growing trend of secular relationships and marriages may make these seminal moments less likely to encourage Americans to return. [5]

These changes have considerable personal and societal consequences. Individually, Americans who report leaving their formative religion report more significant personal hardship than those who were raised—and remain—religious. This is particularly true for Americans who disaffiliate from more conservative religious traditions; 39 percent of Americans raised evangelical Protestant but who no longer identify with the religion say they feel lonely or isolated from the people around them most or all the time. In contrast, only 23 percent of former Catholics say the same.

The decline of religion has implications for American civic and social life as well. Religious Americans are generally more socially and civically active. However, the frequency of religious participation—not one’s religious identity—appears to be the most important factor in determining the level of engagement in other social and civic activities. Americans who regularly attend services are far more engaged in community life than are those who seldom or never attend religious services.

And although higher education has been shown to be strongly associated with an increased propensity toward joining social groups and civic associations, religion still appears to play a significant function. [6] There is evidence that education level and religious involvement both augment participation in community life. College-educated Americans who are religious tend to exhibit the highest levels of civic engagement.

The Generation Gap in Religious Affiliation

American religious identity has experienced nearly three decades of consistent decline. But this roughly linear trend masks significant generational variation in religious identity. Research has consistently shown that every generation of adults is somewhat less religious than the generation that preceded it. [7] This pattern continues with Generation Z demonstrating less attachment to religion than the millennial generation did. [8]

In terms of identity, Generation Z is the least religious generation yet. More than one-third (34 percent) of Generation Z are religiously unaffiliated, a significantly larger proportion than among millennials (29 percent) and Generation X (25 percent). Fewer than one in five (18 percent) baby boomers and only 9 percent of the silent generation are religiously unaffiliated.

It’s not only a lack of religious affiliation that distinguishes Generation Z. They are also far more likely to identify as atheist or agnostic. Eighteen percent of Gen Z affirmatively identify as either atheist (9 percent) or agnostic (9 percent). In contrast, fewer than one in 10 (9 percent) baby boomers and 4 percent of the silent generation identifies as atheist or agnostic.

A Generational Divide in Formative Religious Experiences

Involvement in formal religious activities—those organized through a church or place of worship—is much less common for young people today than it was a generation ago. A majority (57 percent) of baby boomers report having attended religious services with their families at least once a week during their childhoods. Millennials and Gen Zers are much less likely to report attending worship services growing up. Less than half of millennials (45 percent) and Gen Zers (40 percent) say they attended church weekly.

Participation in religious education activities or Sunday school also reveals a substantial generational divide. Sixty-one percent of baby boomers report having attended Sunday school or some other type of religious education program during their childhoods, compared to roughly four in 10 millennials (43 percent) and Gen Zers (42 percent).

With more-informal religious activities, especially those taking place at home, the differences among generations are more modest. Roughly one in five baby boomers (17 percent) say they read religious stories or scripture with their families at least once a week growing up. Millennials (24 percent) and Gen Zers (21 percent) are slightly more likely to have engaged in this activity. Baby boomers are somewhat more likely than younger generations are to say they prayed with their families or said grace at meals; 48 percent report having done this at least once a week during their childhoods. About four in 10 millennials (42 percent) and Gen Zers (40 percent) report praying or saying grace with their families at meals at least once a week. [9]

The modest generational division in saying grace or praying at meals is noteworthy given how much less often younger generations report eating meals with their families as children. Seventy-six percent of baby boomers say they had “meals together as a family” every day when they were growing up, an experience shared by less than half (46 percent) of millennials and only 38 percent of Generation Z.

The Catholic Participation Gap

The generation gap in formal religious activities is especially pronounced among those raised in Catholic households. Among baby boomers who were raised Catholic, 71 percent say they attended church at least once a week with their families. Only about half (51 percent) of millennials raised in Catholic households report attending weekly church services as a family.

Attending Sunday school was also a fairly typical experience for Catholic baby boomers, but far less so for their children’s generation. About seven in 10 (71 percent) baby boomers brought up in Catholic households report attending Sunday school or a religious education program at least weekly while growing up. Less than half (44 percent) of millennials raised Catholic report attending Sunday school as a child.

The Uniquely Religious Upbringing of Black Americans

Black Americans are unique in their formative religious experiences. But the racial gaps are largest among activities that take place at home. Nearly seven in 10 (69 percent) Black Americans report they said grace or prayed with their families during mealtimes at least once a week growing up, an activity far less common among other racial groups. Less than half of White (42 percent), Hispanic (41 percent), and Asian Americans (31 percent) report praying or saying grace with their families during mealtimes at least weekly.

Across racial and ethnic groups, women exhibit higher levels of religious engagement than do men. However, despite similar childhood experiences, the gender gap in religious engagement among Black Americans is significantly higher than that of any other racial or ethnic group. About half (51 percent) of Black women report being a member of a church or religious organization, compared to only about one in three (35 percent) Black men. Black women are also nearly twice as likely as Black men are to be a member of a prayer or Bible study group (32 percent vs. 17 percent, respectively).

Family Structure and Religious Upbringing

Trends in religious affiliation are likely being affected by the substantial shift in American family structure. A recent Pew Research Center study found that nearly one in four (23 percent) Americans are raised in single-parent households, a higher rate than any other country in the study. [10] In the US, Americans brought up in two-parent households tend to have higher rates of religious participation during their childhoods. If two-parent households are more effective in imparting religious values on children, then the rise of single-parent families could have significant repercussions.

Americans raised in single-family homes report being less involved in a range of different religious activities. Among Americans raised in single-parent households, 36 percent say they attended religious services at least once a week growing up, compared to 55 percent of those raised in two-parent households.

The gap in religious education and personal religiosity between household types is also notable, albeit somewhat more modest. Compared to those raised in two-parent households, Americans raised by one parent are significantly less likely to say they attended Sunday school or participated in formal religious education programs regularly during their childhoods (42 percent vs. 56 percent).

Americans raised in single family homes are also less likely to say grace regularly. Thirty-four percent of Americans raised in single-parent households report saying grace or praying with their families at mealtimes at least weekly, compared to 47 percent of those raised in two-parent households.

Declining Liberal Involvement in Religion

A growing body of research finds that religious practice and identity have become entangled with politics. [11] What is notable is just how recent some of these shifts have been.

According to Gallup, in 2021, only 35 percent of liberals said they were a member of a church or other place of worship. [12] But liberals did not always have such low rates of membership. In fact, the left has experienced a precipitous drop in church membership over the past three decades. In 1998, a majority of liberals (57 percent) were members of a church or other type of religious organization.

Conservatives have also experienced a steady drop in church membership, but it has not been nearly as steep. More than six in 10 (62 percent) conservatives belonged to a church or congregation in 2021, a significant decline from 1998 when 77 percent reported being a member.

But it’s not only that liberals register lower levels of religious participation or membership. They are also less likely to have been raised in a religious tradition. Liberals are nearly twice as likely as conservatives are to say they grew up religiously unaffiliated (13 percent vs. 7 percent, respectively). They also report engaging in formal and informal religious activities at lower rates. Rather than religious disengagement reflecting decisions liberals make as adults, their trajectory of disassociation appears to have been set much earlier.

This gap in childhood religiosity was not always so large. At one time, liberal religious experiences were not that different from those of conservatives. Liberal baby boomers report having had more robust religious engagement during their childhoods than younger liberals do. For instance, more than six in 10 (63 percent) liberals who belong to the baby-boomer generation report attending Sunday school or another type of religious education program at least once a week while growing up, compared to 44 percent of liberal millennials.

Childhood Loneliness and Religion

For many young adults, childhood loneliness was not uncommon. Thirty-nine percent of Gen Zers and more than one-third (35 percent) of millennials report they felt lonely at least once a week during their childhoods. Somewhat fewer Gen Xers (29 percent) also say they were lonely this often. Baby boomers are much less likely to report having experienced childhood loneliness. Just 17 percent of baby boomers report having felt lonely as a child once a week or more often.

Previous research has documented a strong connection among religious engagement, increased social support, and greater community participation. [13] However, the relationship between childhood religiosity and social isolation is more complicated. Overall, Americans who were less religiously active during their childhoods are not much more likely to report having felt lonely during that time. For instance, millennials who attended worship services with their families at least once a week are not more likely than those who never attended to say they regularly felt lonely during their childhoods (38 percent vs. 38 percent). However, there are notable differences across generations. Baby boomers who never attended regular worship services with their families are much more likely than those who attended once a week to say they felt lonely growing up (27 percent vs. 15 percent).

Childhood religious attendance may be less closely associated with feelings of loneliness among millennials for the simple reason that abstaining from regular participation was less likely to be a source of conflict. One likely source of loneliness and disconnection in childhood is feeling your own identity or experiences are in opposition to your parents or other close family members. For older Americans, leaving religion was more likely to produce a feeling of discontinuity between their personal beliefs about religion and their family’s religious attachments. Being nonreligious in a religiously observant household would result in greater feelings of isolation and disconnection.

For instance, a majority (57 percent) of nonreligious millennials raised in religiously practicing families—those that attended services weekly or more often—report that they felt lonely often growing up. In contrast, nonreligious millennials raised in nominally religious or secular households—those that never attended religious services—are far less likely to report feeling lonely (38 percent). For children, differences over religion are more likely than the lack of religious involvement itself to produce feelings of loneliness and social isolation.

Changing Patterns of Religious Switching

American religious adherence and affiliation continue to display significant dynamism and churn. But while the pandemic dramatically altered religious practices for a period, there is little evidence of substantive religious change. Religious retention rates—the degree to which Americans’ current religious affiliation matches their childhood identity—are remarkably similar across a number of religious traditions compared to seven years earlier, but important exceptions remain. [14]

Americans raised in the evangelical Protestant religious tradition have the highest rate of retaining their religion as adults. More than three-quarters (77 percent) of Americans raised evangelical report that they currently identify that way today. This is similar to the pattern of religious retention in 2014. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to as Mormons, have also sustained high retention rates over the years. Roughly two-thirds (65 percent) of Mormons are still connected to their formative faith as adults.

Retention rates are lower for mainline Protestants; in 2021, 62 percent of Americans raised mainline Protestant say they are still affiliated with a mainline Protestant denomination. While Catholics have experienced significant membership losses due to religious disaffiliation, retention rates among Catholics have not changed in recent years. Fifty-nine percent of Americans raised in Catholic households retain their religious identity into adulthood, the same retention rate as in 2014. Among Jewish Americans, rates of religious retention have fallen precipitously. Sixty percent of Americans who report being raised Jewish say they still identify that way as an adult, a drop from 75 percent in 2014. [15]

One of the most significant changes in patterns of religious change is the rising retention rate of nonreligious Americans. Today, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of Americans who report having no childhood religious affiliation say they still are unaffiliated as adults, rivaling that of established religious traditions. In 2014, only about half (53 percent) of Americans raised without attachments to a formal religious tradition report retaining their secular identity as adults, [16] and less than half (46 percent) of Americans raised without religion retained that identity in adulthood in 2007. [17]  Over the past 15 years, the retention rate for religiously unaffiliated Americans increased by nearly 20 points.

One explanation for the rise in retention rates among unaffiliated Americans may be that an increasing number of Americans are being raised in nonreligious households and holding onto those commitments into adulthood. Nearly three in 10 (29 percent) Americans who are currently unaffiliated were raised without religion. In 2014, about one in five (21 percent) Americans who were unaffiliated reported having no formative religious attachments.

This pattern is evident across generations as well. Among Generation Z, 43 percent who are now religiously unaffiliated report that they were raised in a nonreligious household. Thirty-six percent of unaffiliated millennials also report growing up nonreligious. Fewer unaffiliated baby boomers grew up without religion (16 percent). Instead, the vast majority (84 percent) of unaffiliated baby boomers were raised religiously and have since left their childhood religion.

Religious Disaffiliation

American religious identity has experienced a near-continuous decline over the past three decades. [18] Roughly one-quarter of Americans are now religiously unaffiliated, a trend that is largely the result of Americans leaving their childhood religious tradition. The majority of unaffiliated Americans were raised religiously but have since left religion. Seventy-one percent of Americans who currently identify as religiously unaffiliated report being raised in a formal religious tradition.

Religious disaffiliation is a relatively common occurrence. Overall, 17 percent of Americans who report being raised in a religious tradition no longer identify with any religion as an adult. However, rates of religious disaffiliation vary across traditions. Americans who were raised in mainline Protestantism (24 percent) and Judaism (27 percent) are most likely to have left their formative faith. More than one in five (21 percent) Americans raised in Catholic households are now unaffiliated. Americans raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints report similar rates of disaffiliation, with 19 percent reporting they are no longer affiliated with their childhood religion as an adult. Americans raised in an evangelical Christian faith are much less likely to leave; only 11 percent say they no longer identify with their childhood faith.

There are notable gender differences in rates of disaffiliation among Catholics. Men raised in Catholic households are much more likely to disaffiliate than are women (26 percent vs. 17 percent, respectively).

Rates of religious disaffiliation do not appear to be increasing across generations. Nearly identical numbers of Gen Zers (19 percent), millennials (18 percent), and Gen Xers (19 percent) report disaffiliating from their childhood religion. Notably, members of the silent generation are much less likely to have left religion; only 9 percent report having disaffiliated.

What most distinguishes Generation Z from previous generations is not that Gen Zers are more likely to leave their childhood religion, but rather that many of them lacked a religious upbringing. Fifteen percent of Gen Zers report being raised in nonreligious households and still do not identify as religious, more than twice the rate of Gen Xers (6 percent) and five times the rate of baby boomers (3 percent). [19]

At What Age Do Americans Disaffiliate from Religion?

Although higher education has served as a popular explanation for rising rates of disaffiliation among young adults, most Americans who leave their childhood religion report doing so before they turn 18. [20] A majority (57 percent) of Americans who no longer identify with their childhood religion report that this change happened before they turned 18. Roughly three in 10 (31 percent) say they left between the ages of 18 and 29, and slightly more than one in 10 (12 percent) report leaving at age 30 or older.

The timing of when Americans have given up their childhood religious commitments has changed across generations. Among young adults (age 18 to 29) today, roughly three-quarters (74 percent) report that they were age 17 or younger at the time they no longer identified with their formative religion, including about one in four (26 percent) who say they left before their teenage years. For older Americans who have disaffiliated, it was much more typical to leave when they were of college age or older. A majority (61 percent) of seniors (age 65 or older) report that they were 18 years or older when they disaffiliated.

Why Americans Leave Religion: Parents, Politics, and Family Structure

A number of analyses have found that most Americans who have disaffiliated from their childhood religion cannot point to a single event or incident that precipitated their departure. Rather, most say they gradually drifted away or, at some point, decided they no longer believed in their religion’s teachings or beliefs. [21] Consistent with these past findings, we find that Americans who leave religion had weaker religious attachments in childhood.

Americans raised in families that attended religious services regularly throughout their childhoods are somewhat less likely to have disaffiliated than those whose families participated in worship services less often. Only 12 percent of Americans who report their families attended services multiple times a week growing up disaffiliated from their childhood religion. In contrast, roughly two in 10 (19 percent) Americans who seldom or never attended religious services with their families growing up have since left.

Traditional family arrangements have historically been associated with more robust religious engagement and more effective transmission of religious values. [22] However, Americans raised in single-parent households (16 percent) are not any more likely to disaffiliate from religion than are those raised in two-parent households (17 percent). This is notable given that Americans raised in single-parent households report significantly less religious involvement in their households growing up.

Parental closeness may be an important factor in explaining religious disaffiliation. Americans who disaffiliated are significantly less likely to say they turned to their parents when they had a personal problem growing up. A majority (54 percent) of Americans raised in a religious tradition who maintained their same religious identity in adulthood report turning to a parent first when facing a problem. In contrast, 41 percent of those who left their childhood religion say they relied on their parents for support.

Finally, an extensive body of research has shown that politics might be prompting Americans to abandon their religious commitments. [23] Americans raised in a religious tradition who identify as politically liberal are over four times more likely to leave religion than are those who identify as conservative. Just over three in 10 (31 percent) liberals raised in a religious tradition no longer identify as such as adults. In contrast, only 7 percent of conservatives raised religiously have disaffiliated.

The Personal Difficulties That Follow Disaffiliation

Separating from a childhood religious identity can strain family relationships and may lead to feelings of loneliness and distrust. Americans who report that they have left religion express greater feelings of personal loneliness and have less satisfying relationships with their parents compared to those who never left their religion.

Twenty-seven percent of Americans who were raised religiously but are now unaffiliated say they feel lonely all or most of the time, compared to 17 percent of those who remained in their childhood religion.

Adults who have left religion are also more likely to experience estrangement from a family member. Overall, 22 percent of Americans report that they have stopped talking to a family member because they found their personal beliefs or views hurtful. Among Americans who left their childhood religion and no longer identify as religious, nearly one in three (32 percent) report they have ceased communication with at least one family member.

The process of leaving one’s childhood religious tradition does not typically follow one particular pattern or script, but some evidence suggests that disaffiliating from certain traditions results in greater hardship. Americans who report disaffiliating from more traditionally oriented or conservative religious traditions and are no longer religious report feeling a greater sense of loneliness and disconnection. Thirty-nine percent of former evangelical Christians report feeling lonely or isolated from those around them most or all of the time. In contrast, significantly fewer former mainline Protestants (28 percent) and former Catholics (23 percent) report feeling isolated or alone this often.

Could Disaffiliated Americans Come Back?

In a previous era, Americans who disaffiliated might have been encouraged to reengage in religious life in response to social pressure or changes in life stages, such as getting married and having children. There are a few reasons we would expect the disaffiliated today to remain disconnected from formal religious institutions.

First, for a variety of reasons, churches do not enjoy the same status and public confidence they once had. Gallup has found that trust and confidence in organized religion have plummeted over the past two decades. In 2021, only 37 percent of the public reported having a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in religious institutions, a massive decline since 2001 when 60 percent reported feeling confident. [24]

Additionally, disaffiliated Americans raised in religious homes express somewhat more negative views about religion than do those who have always been unaffiliated. Overall, only 35 percent of Americans believe religion causes more problems than it solves, but among those who have left religion, 69 percent agree that religion causes problems more than it provides solutions. More than six in 10 (63 percent) Americans who have always been religiously unaffiliated believe religion causes more problems in society than it solves.

Most Americans believe that raising children in religion is beneficial in part because it offers a way to instill good values and moral instruction. A majority (58 percent) of the public agree that children should be brought up in religion so they can learn good values, but unaffiliated Americans vehemently reject this notion. More than eight in 10 (82 percent) religiously unaffiliated Americans—including roughly equal numbers of those who left a religion and those who have always been unaffiliated—disagree that children should be raised in a religious community. Notably, unaffiliated parents are no more likely than unaffiliated Americans without children to say it’s important for children to be brought up in religion (18 percent vs. 14 percent). This suggests that religiously unaffiliated parents are unlikely to join a place of worship simply because they are raising children.

There is considerable disagreement across generations on whether children should be raised in a religion. More than three-quarters (76 percent) of Americans who belong to the silent generation and about two-thirds (68 percent) of baby boomers agree that raising children in a religious tradition is important. Only 40 percent of Gen Zers agree with this statement. Nearly six in 10 (58 percent) reject it.

The Importance of Religion for Community and Social Engagement

Religious disaffiliation has far-reaching implications for civil society at large. Places of worship have long served as vital conduits to broader civic, social, and political engagement. [25] The ongoing decline in American religiosity has occurred alongside a decline in the nation’s community and social life. [26] While it’s unclear whether America’s religious decline is causing a broader societal disconnection or being swept along by the same social forces, the relationship between religious and civic life is undeniable.

The close connection between religion and civic involvement is consistent with previous research, but the relationship is not constant across all activity types. [27] Rather, the religion gap is more pronounced for certain activities and less evident for others. For example, religious Americans report higher rates of voluntarism than the nonreligious; about a third (32 percent) of religious Americans report having volunteered for a school, charity, or religious group within the past six months, compared to 19 percent of nonreligious Americans. However, similar numbers of religious and nonreligious Americans report having helped organize a social gathering in the past six months (15 percent vs. 11 percent, respectively).

The same patterns emerge with group membership. Religious Americans are more likely to belong to a community group or neighborhood association than the nonreligious (22 percent vs. 13 percent), but religious and nonreligious Americans report identical rates of membership in hobby organizations or activity groups (19 percent vs. 19 percent).

One reason religious Americans enjoy only modest benefits over the nonreligious may have to do with waning rates of religious participation. Overall, religious attendance is declining, but this is even true among people who belong to a religious tradition. [28] Simply identifying with a religious community is likely insufficient to increase social interactions and community connection. Being active in a religious community is the essential ingredient.

Regular religious participation, rather than affiliation, appears to be the essential conduit to broader community involvement. On nearly every type of civic or social activity, Americans who attend religious services regularly report higher rates of community involvement than do those who rarely or never attend religious services. Nearly half (49 percent) of Americans who attend religious services weekly or more say they have attended a social event in their communities in the past six months. Less than one-third (30 percent) of those who seldom or never attend services report having participated in a local event in their communities in the past six months.

The Religious and Educational Divide in Group Membership

Although falling rates of formal religious participation may portend diminished civic vitality, other societal trends suggest a more positive trend in American civic life. Americans with more formal education have consistently demonstrated a greater propensity to join and participate in social and civic organizations. A recent report documented that participation in social, religious, and civic activities has become more closely connected to levels of educational attainment. [29] The education gap is even apparent when it comes to religious involvement; college-educated Americans are much more likely to report membership in a church or religious organization than are those without a degree. Could rising rates of college attendance help offset the social and civic losses the country has experienced due to religious decline?

Both education and religion appear to increase the likelihood that people engage in other types of religious and secular activities. College-educated Americans who belong to a religious tradition have some of the highest levels of social involvement, while nonreligious Americans without a college education evidence the least levels of involvement. Overall, a majority (55 percent) of college-educated religious Americans report that they are currently a member of a church or other religious organization, compared to 44 percent of religious Americans without a college degree. [30]

Americans with a college degree and connection to a faith tradition are more likely to belong to a hobby or activity group. Nearly three in 10 (29 percent) religious Americans with a college degree report belonging to a book club, outdoor group, or some other activity-based organization. Nonreligious Americans with a college education (22 percent) and religious Americans without a college education (15 percent) are significantly less likely to be members of hobby or activity groups.

There’s also a notable gap in membership in community groups or neighborhood associations. More than one-third (34 percent) of college-educated, religious Americans belong to a local community group, compared to 16 percent of religious Americans without a degree and only 10 percent of nonreligious Americans who lack a degree.

A more modest gap is evident in membership to sports leagues. Close to one in five (17 percent) college-educated religious Americans report being members of a sports league or workout group, compared to 14 percent of nonreligious Americans with a college degree and fewer than one in 10 (9 percent) nonreligious Americans without a college education.

The Social Divide

Having both a college education and religious connection does not only increase the likelihood of belonging to certain types of local organizations. The combination of a four-year degree and religious affiliation is also linked to greater involvement in a variety of social activities.

Overall, about four in 10 (39 percent) Americans report having attended a social event in their communities in the previous six months. Among religious Americans with a college degree, more than half (51 percent) report attending a local social event in the past six months. In contrast, fewer than one in three (30 percent) Americans who are not religious and did not attend college participated in a local social function in the same time frame.

Volunteerism is also much higher among religious Americans with more years of formal education. Close to half (45 percent) of college-educated religious Americans report having volunteered for a local organization, such as a school, religious group, or charity, within the past six months. Only 13 percent of nonreligious Americans without a degree say the same.

While few Americans overall report helping organize a social gathering in their neighborhoods, this activity is more common among religious Americans with a college degree. One in five (20 percent) college-educated religious Americans report helping organize a social function in the past six months, compared to half (10 percent) as many people who are not religious and lack a college education.

About the Author

Daniel A. Cox is a senior fellow in polling and public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute and the director of the Survey Center on American Life. He specializes in survey research, politics, youth culture and identity, and religion.

[1] Stoyan Zaimov, “Millennials Are the Most Selfish, ‘Least Religious Generation’ in Nation’s History, Study Finds,” Christian Post, May 29, 2015, https://www.christianpost.com/news/millennials-are-the-most-selfish-least-religious-generation-in-nations-history-study-finds.html.

[2] Pew Research Center, “One-in-Five U.S. Adults Were Raised in Interfaith Homes,” October 26, 2016, https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/one-in-five-u-s-adults-were-raised-in-interfaith-homes/  .

[3] Pew Research Center, “One-in-Five U.S. Adults Were Raised in Interfaith Homes.”

[4] Ross M. Stolzenberg, Mary Blair-Loy, and Linda J. Waite, “Religious Participation in Early Adulthood: Age and Family Life Cycle Effects on Church Membership,” American Sociological Review 60, no. 1 (February 1995): 84–103, https://doi.org/10.2307/2096347  .

[5] Justin McCarthy, “U.S. Confidence in Organized Religion Remains Low,” July 8, 2019, https://news.gallup.com/poll/259964/confidence-organized-religion-remains-low.aspx  ; and Daniel A. Cox, Emerging Trends and Enduring Patterns in American Family Life , AEI Survey Center on American Life, February 9, 2022, https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/emerging-trends-and-enduring-patterns-in-american-family-life/ .  

[6] Daniel A. Cox, The College Connection: The Education Divide in American Social and Community Life , AEI Survey Center on American Life, December 13, 2021, https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/the-college-connection-the-education-divide-in-american-social-and-community-life/.  

[7] Michael Lipka, “Millennials Increasingly Are Driving Growth of ‘Nones,’” Pew Research Center, May 12, 2015, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/12/millennials-increasingly-are-driving-growth-of-nones/ .

[8] In this report, generational categories are based on definitions created by Michael Dimock, “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins,” Pew Research Center, January 17, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ . Americans age 18–24 are considered members of Generation Z, Americans age 25–40 as millennials, Americans age 41–56 as members of Generation X, Americans age 57–75 as baby boomers, and Americans age 76–93 as members of the silent generation.

9 One possible reason the experiences of millennials and Gen Zers seem so similar is that current surveys of adults are capturing only a fraction of this age cohort. We are measuring the experiences of only the oldest Gen Zers, who likely share many similarities with the younger edge of the millennial generation. It won’t be possible to determine how Gen Z’s religious upbringings differ from those of millennials until the entire cohort has reached adulthood.

[10] Stephanie Kramer, “U.S. Has World’s Highest Rate of Children Living in Single-Parent Households,” Pew Research Center, December 12, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/12/u-s-children-more-likely-than-children-in-other-countries-to-live-with-just-one-parent/ .

[11] Michele F. Margolis, From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018).  

[12] This analysis was conducted using data from the Gallup Poll Social Series between 1998 and 2020. Respondents with some college education were excluded from this analysis. 

[13] Cox, The College Connection .

[14] Pew Research Center, “Religious Landscape Study,” 2014, https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/.  Pew Religious Landscape data were recoded to accurately compare with American National Family Life Survey data.

[15] According to a recent study by Pew Research Center, nearly three in 10 (27 percent) Jewish Americans do not identify with the Jewish religion. Instead, they consider themselves to be ethnically or culturally Jewish, or they have a familial Jewish background. Given the complexities of Jewish identify, it is possible that Americans raised in Judaism who do not identify as Jewish today may still identify as culturally, but not religiously, Jewish. See Pew Research Center, “Jewish Americans in 2020,” May 11, 2021, https://www.pewforum.org/2021/05/11/jewish-identity-and-belief/ .

[16] Gregory Smith et al., America’s Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow , Pew Research Center, May 12, 2015, 33–47, https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-2-religious-switching-and-intermarriage/ .

[17] Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religion Landscape Survey , February 2008, https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/05/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf  .

[18] Gregory A. Smith, “About Three-in-Ten U.S. Adults Are Now Religiously Unaffiliated,” Pew Research Center, December 14, 2021, https://www.pewforum.org/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/.  

[19] Given the young age of Generation Z, their rate of disaffiliation will likely increase at least somewhat as they age.  

[20] Michael Lipka, “Millennials Increasingly Are Driving Growth of ‘Nones,’” Pew Research Center, May 12 2015, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/12/millennials-increasingly-are-driving-growth-of-nones/.

[21] Rose M. LeCount, “Leaving Religion: A Qualitative Analysis of Religious Exiting,” Inquiries Journal, 2017, http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1713/leaving-religion-a-qualitative-analysis-of-religious-exiting.  

[22] Daniel A. Cox, “The Decline of Religion in American Family Life,” American Enterprise Institute, December 11, 2019, https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-decline-of-religion-in-american-family-life/

[23] Derek Thompson, “Three Decades Ago, America Lost Its Religion. Why?,” Atlantic, September 26, 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/atheism-fastest-growing-religion-us/598843/. 

[24] Gallup, “Religion,” https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx .

[25] Pew Research Center, “Religion’s Relationship to Happiness, Civic Engagement and Health Around the World,” January 31, 2019, https://www.pewforum.org/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/ ; and Jim Jansen, “The Civic and Community Engagement of Religiously Active Americans,” Pew Research Center, December 23, 2011, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/12/23/the-civic-and-community-engagement-of-religiously-active-americans/. 

[26] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 

[27] Jansen, “The Civic and Community Engagement of Religiously Active Americans.”

[28] Tom W. Smith et al., General Social Surveys, 1972–2018 (Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago, 2019). 

[29] Cox, The College Connection .

[30] The term “religious” refers to people who positively identify with any religious tradition regardless of how connected they are to it or how often they attend worship services.

Related Materials

American National Family Life Survey Topline Questionnaire

Read the first report from the American National Family Life Survey:

Emerging trends and enduring patterns in american family life, #ezw_tco-2 .ez-toc-widget-container ul.ez-toc-list li.active::before { background-color: #ffffff; } table of contents, survey reports.

Daniel A. Cox, Sam Pressler August 22, 2024

Disconnected: The Growing Class Divide in American Civic Life

Disconnected: Places and Spaces presents new survey findings that suggest Americans are less connected than ever before.

Daniel A. Cox, Kyle Gray, Kelsey Eyre Hammond May 28, 2024

An Unsettled Electorate: How Uncertainty and Apathy Are Shaping the 2024 Election

A survey of more than 6,500 US adults focused on the 2024 presidential election reveals a pessimistic and unsettled American electorate fractured by education, ideology, class, and gender.

Daniel A. Cox, Kelsey Eyre Hammond, Kyle Gray November 9, 2023

Generation Z and the Transformation of American Adolescence: How Gen Z’s Formative Experiences Shape Its Politics, Priorities, and Future

This report explores the foundational differences between American generations through their formative adolescent experiences.

Daniel A. Cox, M. Anthony Mills, Ian R. Banks, Kelsey Eyre Hammond, Kyle Gray September 28, 2023

America’s Crisis of Confidence: Rising Mistrust, Conspiracies, and Vaccine Hesitancy After COVID-19

America is experiencing a crosscutting crisis of expertise and scientific distrust accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic that poses significant challenges to democratic debate and public decision-making

In the news

August 24, 2024

Many Gen Z Men Feel Left Behind. Some See Trump as an Answer.

August 22, 2024

Asking for help is actually really good for you, according to science

August 21, 2024

Perspective: The troubling question raised by sex selection through IVF

Democrats have lost young men to the GOP — Tim Walz can win them back

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Behavioral intention to purchase sustainable food: generation z’s perspective.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. personal attitude, 2.2. subjective norms, 2.3. perceived behavioral control, 2.4. consumer knowledge, 2.6. health consciousness, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. study design, 3.2. procedure and participants, 3.3. measures, 3.4. data analysis, 5. discussion, 6. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Ifeanyichukwu, C.D. Exploring critical factors influencing sustainable food consumption: A conceptual review. Eur. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2020 , 8 , 32–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Bussel, L.M.; Kuijsten, A.; Mars, M.M.; van ‘t Veer, P. Consumers’ perceptions on food-related sustainability: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 341 , 130904. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verain, M.C.; Bartels, J.; Dagevos, H.; Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G. Segments of sustainable food consumers: A literature review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012 , 36 , 123–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Annunziata, A.; Scarpato, D. Factors affecting consumer attitudes towards food products with sustainable attributes. Agric. Econ. 2014 , 60 , 353–363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalenjuk Pivarski, B.; Šmugović, S.; Tekić, D.; Ivanović, V.; Novaković, A.; Tešanović, D.; Banjac, M.; Đerčan, B.; Peulić, T.; Mutavdžić, B.; et al. Characteristics of traditional food products as a segment of sustainable consumption in Vojvodina’s hospitality industry. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 13553. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jakubowska, D.; Sadílek, T. Sustainably produced butter: The effect of product knowledge, interest in sustainability, and consumer characteristics on purchase frequency. Agric. Econ. 2023 , 69 , 25–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsolakis, N.; Anastasiadis, F.; Srai, J.S. Sustainability performance in food supply networks: Insights from the UK industry. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 3148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991 , 50 , 179–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donald, I.J.; Cooper, S.R.; Conchie, S.M. An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014 , 40 , 39–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maichum, K.; Parichatnon, S.; Peng, K.C. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior model to investigate purchase intention of green products among Thai. Consumers. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 1077. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aydın, H.; Aydin, C. Investigating consumers’ food waste behaviors: An extended theory of planned behavior of Turkey sample. Clean. Waste Syst. 2022 , 3 , 100036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruzgys, S.; Pickering, G.J. Gen Z and sustainable diets: Application of the transtheoretical model and the theory of planned behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 434 , 140300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savelli, E.; Murmura, F. The intention to consume healthy food among older Gen-Z: Examining antecedents and mediators. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022 , 105 , 104788. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agustina, T.; Susanti, E.; Ali Saeed Rana, J. Sustainable consumption in Indonesia: Health awareness, lifestyle, and trust among Gen Z and Millennials. Environ. Econ. 2024 , 15 , 82–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borah, P.S.; Dogbe, C.S.K.; Marwa, N. Generation Z’s green purchase behavior: Do green consumer knowledge, consumer social responsibility, green advertising, and green consumer trust matter for sustainable development? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024 , 33 , 4530–4546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lăzăroiu, G.; Andronie, M.; Uță, C.; Hurloiu, I. Trust management in organic agriculture: Sustainable consumption behavior, Environmentally conscious purchase intention, and healthy food choices. Front. Public Health 2019 , 19 , 340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Priporas, C.V.; Stylos, N.; Fotiadis, A. Generation Z consumers’ expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017 , 77 , 374–381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gazzola, P.; Pavione, E.; Pezzetti, R.; Grechi, D. Trends in the fashion industry. The perception of sustainability and circular economy: A gender/generation quantitative approach. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 2809. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koch, J.; Frommeyer, B.; Schewe, G. Online shopping motives during the COVID-19 pandemic—Lessons from the crisis. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 10247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meixner, O.; Malleier, M.; Haas, R. Towards sustainable eating habits of generation Z: Perception of and willingness to pay for plant-based meat alternatives. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 3414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Audina, G.A.; Pradana, M. The influence of green products and green prices on generation Z purchasing decisions. Int. J. Environ. Eng. Dev. 2024 , 2 , 168–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hudayah, S.; Ramadhani, M.A.; Sary, K.A.; Raharjo, S.; Yudaruddin, R. Green perceived value and green product purchase intention of Gen Z consumers: Moderating role of environmental concern. Environ. Econ. 2023 , 14 , 87–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fodor, M.; Vasa, V.; Popovics, A. Sustainable consumption from a domestic food purchasing perspective among Generation Z. Decis.Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2024 , 7 , 401–417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pachołek, B.; Jakubowska, D.; Sady, S.; Matuszak, L.; Pyszka, A. Perception of discount stores promotional brochures among consumers from generation Z. J. Mark. Mark. Stud. 2024 , 4 , 33–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Armitage, C.; Christian, J. From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Curr. Psychol. 2003 , 22 , 187–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, X.; Xu, Z.; Ding, F.; Li, Z. The influencers’ attributes and customer purchase intention: The mediating role of customer attitude toward brand. Sage Open 2024 , 14 , 21582440241250122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pamungkas, D.D.A. The influence of perceived value and product involvement towards purchase intention mediated by attitudey. J. World Sci. 2023 , 2 , 989–997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dorce, L.C.; da Silva, M.C.; Mauad, J.R.C.; Domingues, C.H.F.; Borges, J.A.R. Extending the theory of planned behavior to understand consumer purchase behavior for organic vegetables in Brazil: The role of perceived health benefits, perceived sustainability benefits and perceived price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021 , 91 , 104191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Setyarko, Y.; Noermijati, N.; Rahayu, M.; Sudjatno, S. The role of consumer green assurance in strengthening the influence of purchase intentions on organic vegetable purchasing behavior: Theory of planned behavior approach. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2024 , 21 , 1228–1241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aprilia, A.; Dewi, H.E.; Pariasa, I.I.; Hardana, A.E. Factors affecting consumers’ preferences in purchasing organic vegetables using a theory of planned behavior. IOP Conf.Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024 , 1306 , 012028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Biasini, B.; Rosi, A.; Scazzina, F.; Menozzi, D. Predicting the adoption of a sustainable diet in adults: A cross-sectional study in Italy. Nutrients 2023 , 15 , 2784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xin, S.; Qian-Er, X.; Qiao, L. Predicting sustainable food consumption across borders based on the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic structural equation model. PLoS ONE 2022 , 17 , e0275312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Canova, L.; Bobbio, A.; Manganelli, A.M. Sustainable purchase intentions: The role of moral norm and social dominance orientation in the theory of planned behavior applied to the case of fair trade products. Sustain. Dev. 2022 , 31 , 1069–1083. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jusuf, K.; Nuttavuthisit, K. Going from attitude to action: Analyzing how the orientations of sustainable food businesses influence their business strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023 , 32 , 4371–4381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Islam, Q.; Ali Khan, S.M.F. Assessing consumer behavior in sustainable product markets: A structural equation modeling approach with partial least squares analysis. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 3400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maduku, D.K. How environmental concerns influence consumers’ anticipated emotions towards sustainable consumption: The moderating role of regulatory focus. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024 , 76 , 103593. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bulut, E.; Yildirim, B.; Brandão, A.; Vieira, B.M.; Tavares, V. Influence of sustainability on the purchase decision of products. Eur. J. Appl. Bus. Manag. 2022 , 8 , 32–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong, S.L.; Hsu, C.C.; Chen, H.S. To buy or not to buy? Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions for suboptimal food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 1431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Varah, F.; Mahongnao, M.; Pani, B.; Khamrang, S. Exploring young consumers’ intention toward green products: Applying an extended theory of planned behavior. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021 , 23 , 9181–9195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meliniasari, A.R.; Mas’od, A. Understanding factors shaping green cosmetic purchase intentions: Insights from attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 1487–1496. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hsu, C.-L.; Chang, C.-Y.; Yansritakul, C. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017 , 34 , 145–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chi, T.; Zheng, Y. Understanding environmentally friendly apparel consumption: An empirical study of Chinese consumers. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 2016 , 8 , 206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dangelico, R.M.; Ceccarelli, G.; Fraccascia, L. Consumer behavioral intention toward sustainable biscuits: An extension of the theory of planned behavior with product familiarity and perceived value. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024 , 1–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, J.; Sui, D. Investigating college students’ green food consumption intentions in China: Integrating the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024 , 8 , 1404465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tzeng, S.-Y.; Ho, T.-Y. Exploring the effects of product knowledge, trust, and distrust in the health belief model to predict attitude toward dietary supplements. Sage Open 2022 , 12 , 21582440211068855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, E.J.; Bae, J.; Kim, K.H. The effect of environmental cues on the purchase intention of sustainable products. J. Bus. Res. 2020 , 120 , 425–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahadeva, R.; Ganji, E.N.; Shah, S. Sustainable consumer behaviours through comparisons of developed and developing nations. Int. J. Environ. Eng. Dev. 2024 , 2 , 106–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Pacho, F.; Liu, J.; Kajungiro, R. Factors influencing organic food purchase intention in developing countries and the moderating role of knowledge. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Ma, B.; Bai, R. How does green product knowledge effectively promote green purchase intention? Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 1193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peschel, A.O.; Grebitus, C.; Steiner, B.; Veeman, M. How does consumer knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross-country latent class analysis of food labels. Appetite 2016 , 106 , 78–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Camilleri, A.R.; Larrick, R.P.; Hossain, S.; Patino-Echeverri, D. Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019 , 9 , 53–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simeone, M.; Scarpato, D. Sustainable consumption: How does social media affect food choices? J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 277 , 124036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartmann, C.; Lazzarini, G.; Funk, A.; Siegrist, M. Measuring consumers’ knowledge of the environmental impact of foods. Appetite 2021 , 167 , 105622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Al-Kfairy, M.; Shuhaiber, A.; Al-Khatib, A.W.; Alrabaee, S.; Khaddaj, S. Understanding trust drivers of S-commerce. Heliyon 2024 , 10 , e23332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Robinson, C.; Ruth, T.; Easterly, R.G. (Tre), Franzoy, F. and Lillywhite, J. Examining consumers’ trust in the food supply chain. J. Appl. Commun. 2020 , 104 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murphy, I.; Benson, T.; Lavelle, F.; Elliott, C.; Dean, M. Assessing differences in levels of food trust between European countries. Food Control 2021 , 120 , 107561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• László, V.; Szakos, D.; Csizmadiáné Czuppon, V.; Kasza, G. Consumer trust in local food system—Empirical research in Hungary. Acta Aliment. 2024 , 53 , 165–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cook, B.; Costa Leite, J.; Rayner, M.; Stoffel, S.; van Rijn, E.; Wollgast, J. Consumer interaction with sustainability labelling on food products: A narrative literature review. Nutrients 2023 , 15 , 3837. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Randoni, A.; Grasso, S. Consumers behaviour towards carbon footprint labels on food: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 301 , 127031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tonkin, E.; Wilson, A.M.; Coveney, J.; Webb, T.; Meyer, S.B. Trust in and through labelling—A systematic review and critique. Br. Food J. 2015 , 117 , 318–338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuan, R.; Jin, S.; Lin, W. Could trust narrow the intention-behavior gap in eco-friendly food consumption? Evidence from China. Agribusiness 2023 , 1–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rizomyliotis, I. Consumer trust and online purchase intention for sustainable products. Am. Behav. Sci. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van der Zee, E. Regulatory structure underlying sustainability labels. In Sustainability Labels in the Shadow of the Law ; Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Truong, V.A.; Lang, B.; Conroy, D.M. When food governance matters to consumer food choice: Consumer perception of and preference for food quality certifications. Appetite 2022 , 168 , 105688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hasan, M.M.; Al Amin, M.; Arefin, M.S.; Mostafa, T. Green consumers’ behavioral intention and loyalty to use mobile organic food delivery applications: The role of social supports, sustainability perceptions, and religious consciousness. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024 , 6 , 15953–16003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rana, J.; Paul, J. Health motive and the purchase of organic food: A meta-analytic review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020 , 44 , 162–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ares, G.; de Saldamando, L.; Giménez, A.; Claret, A.; Cunha, L.M.; Guerrero, L.; de Moura, A.P.; Oliveira, D.C.R.; Symoneaux, R.; Deliza, R. Consumers’ associations with wellbeing in a food-related context: A cross-cultural study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015 , 40 , 304–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fortunka, K.B. Factors affecting human health in the modern world. J. Educ. Health Sport 2020 , 10 , 75–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verain, M.C.D.; Raaijmakers, I.; Meijboom, S.; van der Haar, S. Differences in drivers of healthy eating and nutrition app preferences across motivation-based consumer groups. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024 , 116 , 105145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, M.-F. Modern health worries and functional foods. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013 , 43 , E1–E12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nagaraj, S. Role of consumer health consciousness, food safety and attitude on organic food purchase in emerging market: A serial mediation model. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021 , 59 , 102423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hansmann, R.; Baur, I.; Binder, C.R. Increasing organic food consumption: An integrating model of drivers and barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 275 , 123058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ladwein, R.; Sanchez Romero, A.M. The role of trust in the relationship between consumers, producers and retailers of organic food: A sector-based approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021 , 60 , 102508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tm, A.; Kaur, P.; Ferraris, A.; Dhir, A. What motivates the adoption of green restaurant products and services? A systematic review and future research agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020 , 30 , 2224–2240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Konuk, A.F. The role of store image, perceived quality, trust and perceived value in predicting consumers’ purchase intentions towards organic private label food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018 , 43 , 304–310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Farias, F.; Eberle, L.; Milan, G.S.; De Toni, D.; Eckert, A. Determinants of organic food repurchase intention from the perspective of Brazilian consumers. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020 , 25 , 921–943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saari, U.A.; Damberg, S.; Frömbling, L.; Ringle, C.M. Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecol. Econ. 2021 , 189 , 107155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dimitrova, T.; Iliana, I.; Mina, A. Exploring factors affecting sustainable consumption behaviour. Adm. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leidner, D.; Sutanto, J.; Goutas, L. Influencing Environmentally Sustainable Consumer Choice through Information Transparency. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Virtual, 4–7 January 2022; pp. 4749–4758. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gul, S.; Ahmed, W. Enhancing the theory of planned behavior with perceived consumer effectiveness and environmental concern towards pro-environmental purchase intentions for eco-friendly apparel: A review article. Bull. Bus. Econ. (BBE) 2024 , 13 , 784–791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Young, M.; Varpio, L.; Uijtdehaage, S.; Paradis, E. The spectrum of inductive and deductive research approaches using quantitative and qualitative data. Acad. Med. 2019 , 95 , 1122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Determinants of Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior in a Developing Nation: Applying and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Ecol. Econ. 2017 , 134 , 114–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Setyawan, A.; Noermijati, N.; Sunaryo, S.; Aisjah, S. Green product buying intentions among young consumers: Extending the application of theory of planned behavior. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2018 , 16 , 145–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016 , 29 , 123–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saxena, N.; Sharma, R. Impact of spirituality, culture, behaviour on sustainable consumption intentions. Sustain. Dev. 2023 , 32 , 2724–2740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Swidi, A.; Huque, S.M.R.; Hafeez, M.H.; Shariff, M.N.M. The role of subjective norms in theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption. Br. Food J. 2014 , 116 , 1561–1580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Askadilla, W.L.; Krisjanti, M.N. Understanding Indonesian green consumer behavior on cosmetic products: Theory of planned behavior model. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2017 , 15 , 7–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ru, X.; Wang, S.; Chen, Q.; Yan, S. Exploring the interaction effects of norms and attitudes on green travel intention: An empirical study in eastern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 197 , 1317–1327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Witek, L.; Kuzniar, W. Green purchase behaviour gap: The effect of past behaviour on green food product purchase intentions among individual consumers. Foods 2024 , 13 , 136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, M.P.; Chakraborty, A.; Roy, M. Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to explore circular economy readiness in manufacturing MSMEs, India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018 , 135 , 313–322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kabir, M.R.; Islam, S. Behavioural intention to purchase organic food: Bangladeshi consumers’ perspective. Brit. Food J. 2022 , 124 , 754–774. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, S.; Gupta, K.; Kumar, A.; Singh, A.; Singh, R. Applying the theory of reasoned action to examine consumers’ attitude and willingness to purchase organic foods. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022 , 47 , 118–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anupam, S.; Priyanka, V. Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behaviour towards organic food products. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 167 , 473–483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thogersen, J. The importance of consumer trust for the emergence of a market for green products: The case of organic food. J. Bus. Ethics 2017 , 140 , 323–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers: Evidences from a developing nation. Appetite 2016 , 96 , 122–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. In Prediction and change of health behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press: New York, USA ; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, USA, 2010; pp. 3–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malhotra, N. Questionnaire design and scale development. In the Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses and Future Advances ; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 83–94. ISBN 1-4129-0997-X. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999 , 6 , 1–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981 , 18 , 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981 , 18 , 382–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhong, F.; Li, L.; Guo, A.; Song, X.; Cheng, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, X. Quantifying the influence path of water conservation awareness on water-saving irrigation behavior based on the theory of planned behavior and structural equation modeling: A case study from Northwest China. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 4967. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savari, M.; Gharechaee, H. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to predict Iranian farmers’ intention for safe use of chemical fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 263 , 121512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lavuri, R.; Jindal, A.; Akram, U.; Naik, B.K.R.; Halibas, A.S. Exploring the antecedents of sustainable consumers’ purchase intentions: Evidence from emerging countries. Sustain. Dev. 2023 , 31 , 280–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harjadi, D.; Gunardi, A. Factors affecting eco-friendly purchase intention: Subjective norms and ecological consciousness as moderators. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020 , 9 , 2148334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anjaka, R.G.; Syafrizal, A. The effect of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behaviour control on intention to reduce food waste and food waste behaviour. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2022 , 15 , 329–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alam, S.S.; Ahmad, M.; Ho, Y.H.; Omar, N.A.; Lin, C.Y. Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to sustainable food consumption. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yazdanpanah, M.; Forouzani, M. Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict Iranian students’ intention to purchase organic food. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 107 , 342–352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hasan, H.; Suciarto, S. The influence of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control towards organic food purchase intention. J. Manag. Bus. Environ. 2020 , 1 , 132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ham, M.; Jeger, M.; Frajman Ivković, A. The role of subjective norms in forming the intention to purchase green food. Econ. Res. -Ekon. Istraživanja 2015 , 28 , 738–748. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shin, Y.H.; Hancer, M. The role of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and moral norm in the intention to purchase local food products. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016 , 19 , 338–351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, B. Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach to Understand the Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products 2012 ; No. WP2012-12-08; Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department: Ahmedabad, Indian, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer attitude-behaviour gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006 , 19 , 169–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dipietro, R.B.; Remar, D.; Parsa, H.G. Health consciousness, menu information, and consumers’ purchase intentions: An empirical investigation. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016 , 19 , 497–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parasha, S.; Singh, S.; Sood, G. Examining the role of health consciousness, environmental awareness and intention on purchase of organic food: A moderated model of attitude. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 386 , 135553. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michaelidou, N.; Hassan, L.M. The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008 , 32 , 163–170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Z.; Zhu, Y.D.; Deng, J.; Wang, C.L. Marketing healthy diets: The impact of health consciousness on Chinese consumers’ food choices. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mughal, H.A.; Thøgersen, J.; Faisal, F. purchase intentions of non-certified organic food in a non-regulated market: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2021 , 35 , 110–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ayyub, S.; Asif, M.; Nawaz, M.A. Drivers of organic food purchase intention in a developing country: The mediating role of trust. Sage Open 2021 , 11 , 21582440211045076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dumortier, J.; Evans, K.S.; Grebitus, C.; Martin, P.A. The influence of trust and attitudes on the purchase frequency of organic produce. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2017 , 29 , 46–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parwez, M.; Ansari, Z.; Mullick, N.H. Examining the antecedents of behavioral intention toward organic food in India. Sustain. Clim. Change 2022 , 15 , 422–435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghaffar, A.; Zaheer Zaidi, S.S.; Islam, T. An investigation of sustainable consumption behavior: The influence of environmental concern and trust in sustainable producers on consumer xenocentrism. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2023 , 34 , 771–793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dowd, K.; Burke, K.J. The influence of ethical values and food choice motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Appetite 2013 , 69 , 137–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kamboj, S.; Matharu, M.; Gupta, M. Examining consumer purchase intention towards organic food: An empirical study. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023 , 9 , 100121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Sio, S.; Zamagni, A.; Casu, G.; Gremigni, P. Green Trust as a Mediator in the Relationship between Green Advertising Skepticism, Environmental Knowledge, and Intention to Buy Green Food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 16757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Begho, T.; Odeniyi, K.; Fadare, O. Toward acceptance of future foods: The role of trust and perception in consumption intentions of plant-based meat alternatives. Br. Food J. 2023 , 125 , 2392–2406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Jakubowska, D.; Dąbrowska, A.Z.; Pachołek, B.; Sady, S. Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177284

Jakubowska D, Dąbrowska AZ, Pachołek B, Sady S. Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177284

Jakubowska, Dominika, Aneta Zofia Dąbrowska, Bogdan Pachołek, and Sylwia Sady. 2024. "Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177284

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 52 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

More From Forbes

The new 2024 ‘brat’ trend in the workplace and what it means.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Discover what it means that Gen Z at work is a "Brat" obsessed generation that runs counter to ... [+] common perceptions.

Did you know that Gen Z is “brat” at learning and breaking workplace misconceptions? No, I didn’t say Gen Z’s are brats. I said they’re “brat”—an adjective, not a noun, that refers to the Gen Z language going viral. It’s actually a cool adjective of endearment, not a derogatory term. But it’s an important descriptive about the contemporary workplace. It is predicted that Gen Z will make up close to 27% of the U.S. workforce by next year, and bring with them their own slang such as “brat,” “Yap” or “very demure.”

Gen Z’s Terms Of Endearment

Since communication between generations is more critical than ever, TollFreeForwarding.com has created a TikTok Slang Dictionary to bridge the generation gap and help older employees connect with younger colleagues and hopefully improve workplace communication. In case you’re having trouble understand your Gen Z colleagues, here are 10 of the most used phrases from the dictionary:

• Very Demure: A person or action that is seen as “not too much,” soft, cute, and mindful.
• Brat: Compliment towards a person or action emulating confident rebellion, playful defiance and boldness.
• Aura Points: A way to measure how cool someone is. Each action a person does can increase or decrease the points based on what friends or colleagues think.
• Slay: A compliment used to describe an excellent job or action.
• Rizz: Short for charisma. Exceedingly charming and can easily woo someone.
• Cap: A statement that is a lie. No cap means “I’m not lying.”
• Ate/Eats: A compliment used to describe an action done impressively.
• Bet: An expression used for affirming a statement or agreeing to something, a confirmation.
• Yap: To speak for a long time. A person who is chatty or talks nonsensical—a “yapper.”
• Ick: A characteristic of someone that is an immediate turnoff.

“Naturally, it was a good bit of fun putting this together, but that doesn’t mean workplace communication isn’t an important topic for us all,” according to Jason O’Brien, COO of TollFreeForwarding.com. “It falls to all of us, from managers to employees, to make the effort to meet our colleagues halfway when it comes to communicating with each other. We all have value to add in the workplace, which means we need to be able to work together and communicate effectively, no matter our age differences.”

iPhone 16 Release: Apple Confirms Special Event, On A Surprise New Date

‘exciting updates’—new details of donald trump’s mystery crypto project spark wild bitcoin rival speculation, trump signals he may skip abc news debate after bashing network, gen z bringing ‘brat’ culture to the workplace.

The learning experts at Udemy released new data this month, proclaiming that Gen Z is “Brat” at learning and breaking workplace misconceptions. Their data outlines Gen Zers’ perceptions of what matters at work, how ready they are for the workplace and how they feel about learning.

The slang “Brat” is a complimentary term. According to some sources even Kamala Harris’s campaign is having a "Brat 2024 summer." The “Brat” culture is about accepting imperfections and owning your authentic self, Alan Todd told me by email. Todd, vice president and general manager of Udemy business leadership academy, says their research, Gen Z at Work: Understanding the Next Generation , shows that Gen Z are bringing a “Brat” mindset to the workforce, challenging common stereotypes associated with their generation and remaining true to their values in both their career and learning journeys.

The survey ran from April 1st to May 7th, 2024 and gathered results from 6,677 multi-generational global learners across 10 countries. Findings tell an interesting narrative about the “Brat” obsessed generation that’s counter to common perceptions. “For example, the so-called TikTok generation is often believed to lack the focus for sustained learning,” Todd explains. “But when asked what forms of learning they typically engage with and which, out of these, are their preferred learning methods, Gen Zers report their primary preferred method of learning is through full online courses (44%).”

Todd points out that Gen Z are often depicted by other generations as “lazy” and “unmotivated.” In fact, my previous stories at Forbes.com also show that they are getting flak for their inability to collaborate and communicate, and hiring managers say Gen Z is the worst to work with and manage . Their desire for immediate feedback and flexible work environments often clashes with traditional practices, so they resort to leaning more on AI than their managers.

According to HiBob , Gen Z is being “very demure” and mindful in how they move forward with the company. As they enter the workforce, they show they care more about their long-term plans than millennials, thinking about 401(k)s, skill development and a clear, structured growth plan when considering job offers. When all is said and done, perhaps Gen Z is simply demonstrating that they have a different way of approaching their careers—with clear and methodical direction. And who can argue with that?

Todd agrees, noting that Udemy’s data also contradict previous negative stereotypes, showing that Gen Z operate outside of arbitrary expectations, invoking “Brat” by looking for ways to grow and up-skill in their careers without compromising their mental wellness. He adds that 65% of Gen Z are eager for professional development, placing a strong emphasis on mental health, with 42% wanting senior leadership to prioritize work-life balance policies and 38% advocating for employee well-being and mental health support.

Other call outs in the data include:

• Gen Z prefers to be in person: Face-to-face meetings are the top preferred method of communication for nearly three in five (58%) Gen Z respondents. These findings are notable, given the perception that Gen Zers only like to communicate by text and shun direct face-to-face communication.
• Gen Z resists AI in learning: When respondents were asked how likely they were to use an online learning platform that offers an AI-driven personalized learning experience, the results showed Gen Z is less likely to do so (70%) than Gen X or Millenials.
• Microlearning drives the popularity of online learning: Nearly all Gen Z survey respondents (94%) dedicate at least an hour a week to learning, and half (50%) spend five hours or more per week learning.

“In these ways, Gen Z is challenging perceived stereotypes,” Todd concludes. “Gen Z inspire a new, more human-centered approach to leading people. The intersection of ‘Brat’ culture and Gen Z’s values is changing company cultures in important, positive ways, as leaders find ways to celebrate each person’s unique skills to create stronger, more resilient teams.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.