A few years ago I was hired to help revise a psychology book to make it more appealing to Gen Z. I’m a millennial, but my younger brother is Gen Z (“digital natives” born between 1997 and 2012) and our perceptions. American lives are different, sometimes dramatically.
To help with my revisions, I read again By psychologist Jean Twenge. The main hypothesis of the book is that Gen Z is unique very worried tolerance diversity and social justicemore than any previous American generation.
But as with every generation, there are outliers. And these surprises can surprise us and teach us what influences the subgroups of a generation.
About supporting science journalism
If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you’re helping to ensure a future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world.
As a social psychologist who studies the interplay between social structures and individual psychology, I have seen this relationship stand out. these presidential elections. i followed survey output looking closely at psychological “surprises” in policy trends, where individual and group behavioral expectations (based on psychology, history, and sociodemographic orientations) diverge from what actually unfolds. What I’ve seen in Gen Z voting trends is something politicians need to pay attention to as the next generation comes of voting age: the young white male vote is skewing conservative, in part because of the way society defines and sets expectations around masculinity.
Generation Z, as a bloc, should vote blue. Democrats, after all, claim it the aspect of progressespecially compared to current iteration of the Republican Party, and Twenge says Gen Zers are “obsessed with security, focused on tolerance and impatient with difference.” Kamala Harris focused on a key progressive issue: saving women the right to abortion— while Donald Trump’s campaign was in full swing sexist remarks and a promise to back off protections for transgender students in schools And while Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz was notable progressive championTrump’s running mate, JD Vance, endorsed the regressive and humiliating views women’s place in American society. In general, if it is true that Gen Zers define their progressive views on socio-political issues, they should overwhelmingly vote the Democrat ticket. It was definitely the Harris-Walz campaign counting on that.
And they did, sort of. 54 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 They voted for Harris and Walz. This is not new: young people bend blue. However, if what Twenge and others say is true, and this group is particularly concerned with social justice, that number should be higher. I was certain that Gen Zers—regardless of their gender, education level, or geographic location—would overwhelmingly vote for Harris. But they didn’t. Democrats he lost a lot of feet with young voters, although almost always a historically marginalized group, especially LGBTQ+ youth, leaning to the left.
So who didn’t vote as expected? Gen Z young white men—mostly those without college degrees—voted absolute For Trump (67 percent), that’s about the same as his fellow millennials (also 67 percent). By comparison, Gen Z were white working-class women it is likely blue (43 percent) than older millennials (34 percent).
As a learning researcher identity, behavior and aggression between young menthese patterns set off alarm bells for me.
But, the answer is not that simple “toxic masculinity”. What drove white, working-class Gen Z men to rally behind Trump—a candidate with his characteristics— anger, aggression, hatred, hegemony and specific the mark of manhood? Based on decades of research, including my own, the answer is tied to three key ideas in social psychology: conformity, motivation, and threat.
It is consent basic principle of human experience. Whether we realize it or not, everyone conforms to the rules almost every moment of every day. We dress appropriately for work, stifle opinions that might disturb the harmony of the group, and (hopefully) stay right at pedestrian escalators. In the context of gender, most of us conform primarily to the norms associated with our gender group. the men and the boys, who are punished more than women and girls for deviating from gender norms.
The undue pressure The experience of being stereotypically masculine by men and boys leads me to the central role of motivation in male anger and aggression. In the theory of self-determinationpressure is the antithesis of autonomy. Humans need to feel as if we have agency over our actions, which is why push motivation is associated with a many negative results. For example, when learning is framed as something inherently enjoyable, we tend to engage more deeply than when it is framed as pressure (e.g. to get good grades).
of the people motivations for gender conformity it can also be pressured or autonomous. My researchers and I found that young men who were pressured by the expectations of others showed the highest levels of aggressive and angry responses when they felt they had to assert their masculinity. We attributed this to the fact that, compared to older men, young men are exploring their masculine identity—at a time of increased pressures in relationships, careers, and families. This is why masculinity can be particularly “fragile” at this stage of life.
Our findings are consistent with the voting behavior of working-class men in recent presidential elections. These young men face constant pressures in an increasingly insecure America. On the one hand, young people in conservative rural areas are under pressure from previous generations: to excel economically, to find and maintain a nuclear family. On the other hand, they face new sources of pressure and uncertainty (read: threat). with shrinking middle classGeneration Z men (incl Black and Latino men) voted for Trump in response to an economy that is ignoring them one in five young people currently unemployed. Trump too fanned the flames of xenophobiaencouraging his base to blame immigrants for their economic hardship, even if those accusations are true completely unfounded. In a culture that equalizesbeing a man“ with economic success, supporting one’s family and achieving the American dream, the election results are not surprising to me. The electoral anger of young working-class men was a direct—and very human—response to constant pressures, perceived threats, and general fears for themselves and their families.
At the root of all of this, I believe, is the outdated misperception in their families and wider society that humans are supposed to be strong protectors and breadwinners. This notion is called hegemonic masculinity, and it was the acceptance of this set of beliefs the strongest predictor Support for Trump in 2016 and 2020 is even stronger than voters’ political party affiliation, gender, race, or education. in one final examWe tested when and why US boys between the ages of 10 and 14 start the same patterns that cause aggression among young adult men. We found that the combination of masculinity threat and pressure predicted boys’ aggressive response (ie, how aggressive they felt and thought) in mid-late puberty but not earlier, which helps us understand when masculine fragility emerges (knowing that it declines later in life). We also collected data from the boys’ parents. We found that male pressures were particularly high among boys whose parents supported hegemonic masculinity. We also found that these parents were particularly likely working class and live in more conservative US counties.
In other words, we identified the subset of parents who put the most pressure on their children to be powerful protectors and protectors, which in turn predicted how aggressive boys were in defending their masculinity. Our findings suggest that if it’s business as usual in American society—combining pressures to meet outdated gender expectations with real socioeconomic threats—none of us in the working class should be surprised. Alpha Generation men vote like their Gen Z, millennial and senior peers.
Short-term solutions are difficult. In past jobs, I have proposed solutions men’s anger and compensatory aggression, both at the individual level and at the social level. For example, I think it’s important for adults, such as parents, doctors, and teachers, to resist the urge to put undue pressure on boys, as well as equip boys with the tools they need. cope with the pressure. On a broader level, it is important to promote gender diversity in positions of leadership and power, so that boys learn that people of all genders—not just men—share the responsibility to provide and protect. If we can target the mechanisms underlying the pressure boys and men face, we should be able to reduce the anger and aggression they display to prove their manhood.
In the even shorter term, we must consider perspectives other than our own. The anger of young working-class men in this election cycle was a direct and humane response to basic psychological issues pressure-threat processes. Until the Democrats at least If we begin to consider (and not ignore or ignore) these perspectives—the unique pressures and perceived threats facing working-class Americans—we should prepare for many more “surprises” to come.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author(s) are not necessarily their own. American scientific
