Fooyin J Health Sci 2010;2(2):41−47

R EVIEW ART IC L E

Liberated Anomie in Generation Next:

Hyperindividualism, Extreme Consumerism,
and Social Isolationism
Joh-Jong Huang1, Ming-Yii Huang2*†, Fei-Kai Syu3,4*†
1
Department of Family Medicine, Yuan’s General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine,
College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
3
Department of Medical Research, Fooyin University Hospital, Pingtung, Taiwan
4
School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States

Received: April 9, 2010 Revised: June 7, 2010 Accepted: June 10, 2010

Liberated anomie is a defining feature of Generation Next, allowing young adults to hold wide latitudes of accept-
ance for risk behaviors by disengaging from others and from the negative impact their actions may have on society.
This cohort’s experiences with hyperindividualism, extreme consumerism, and social isolationism have created hyper-
tolerance for deviant behaviors. The impact of online communications, a child-centric upbringing, and the historical
and cultural forces that shaped Generation Next have created unique challenges for developing health messages for
young adults. Clarification of cohort-defining values, however, provides a starting point for framing health messages.
Key features of successful public health messages will reduce normative fallacy related to risk behaviors among young
adults, appeal to the individual and provide opportunities to consume products or services related to the message.
Most importantly, public health must be part of the creation of new rituals, both online and offline, so that social
consciousness and social control can be developed in concert with the core values of Generation Next.

Key Words: extreme consumerism; Generation Next; hyperindividualism; Liberated anomie; social isolationism

Introduction The media frames Generation Nexters as both the

The current cohort of young adults is called
“Generation Next,” “Echo Boomers,” “Generation
Y,” “iGen,” and “the Millennials.” With these various
names come various definitions of their age range;
however, most agree that Generation Next comprises
60 million people born between 1977 and 1994.1
shining hope for America’s future, and the doomsday
generation that will hasten its end. The majority
of Generation Next is now college-aged: 18- to
24-year-olds who are experiencing the traditional
period of self-definition and discovery in American
society. Yet rather than jumping into American civic
and business life, this generation is stepping away.

*Corresponding authors. Fei-Kai Syu, Department of Medical Research, Fooyin University Hospital, 5 Zhongshan Road,
Donggang Town, Pingtung County 92847, Taiwan. Ming-Yii Huang, Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Medical
University, 100 Shih-Chuan 1st Road, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan.
E-mail: Syufeikai29@gmail.com or miyihu@kmu.edu.tw
†
Ming-Yii Huang and Fei-Kai Syu contributed equally to this work.

©2010 Fooyin University Hospital

42
What has influenced this cohort’s reluctance to join
society, and what are the future consequences for
Generation Next’s health?
The powerful forces of history and popular culture
shape the values, attitudes, beliefs and worldviews
of groups.2 It is difficult to generalize about an entire
generation, as individuals will not always act in ac-
cordance with their generation’s values and norms.
However, social trends, norms, and historical events
that influence generations during childhood and ad-
olescence define what range of behaviors is possible
in their lives.
Cohort and life course analysis can be used to
explain trends in society, especially concerning health
outcomes.3,4 Several historical and cultural trends
described by Coombs2 provide important referents
for Generation Next’s behavior: new Puritanism;
political polarization and ineffectiveness; tensions
between globalization and nationalism, fundamen-
talism and postmodernism; the rise of the digital era;
increased power and opportunity for women; and
increased attachment to technology.
The norms and behaviors constructed from
Generation Next’s focus on the self, increased appe-
tite for consumer goods, and shift to creating social
ties online contrast this generation with previous
generations; this group of young adults has disen-
gaged from society and its norms more than any
preceding generation.
This review takes stock of this new generation. It
explores their outlook, their lifestyle and their pol-
itics. Because the boundaries that separate gener-
ations are indistinct, the definition of Generation
Next, as mentioned in this review, is necessarily
approximate. The main characteristics are divided
into three main sections: (1) hyperindividualism, (2)
extreme consumerism, and (3) social isolationism.
“Liberated” Anomie
Suzette Cote defines anomie as “the breakdown of
the ability of society to regulate the natural drives
of individuals in the face of rapid social change.”5
Three experiences unique to Generation Nexters—
hyperindividualism, extreme consumerism, and social
isolationism—have shaped their worldviews and en-
couraged their detachment from traditional social
life. Exposure to these experiences in childhood and
adolescence created a shared cohort reality that
has lead to disengagement from civil society and
liberated anomie (Figure 1). Unlike Emile Durkheim’s
anomie, which leads to despondence in the individ-
ual, liberated anomie is characterized by disconnec-
tion from society, but not from the self; individuals
feel free to satisfy personal needs without consider-
ing the consequences of their actions on the rest of
J.J. Huang et al
Wealth
Education
Race
Class
Cohort Liberated
experience anomie
Hyperindividualism Increased tolerance
Extreme consumerism for “deviant”
Social isolationism behaviors
Figure 1 Liberated anomie model.
society. This liberated anomie is especially evident
in middle and upper-middle class college students,
who have had the advantage of wealth and class to
shield them from traditional anomic consequences,
namely depression and suicide. Yet this group is not
immune to Durkheim’s construct. While protected
by their status and youth from feeling its tradi-
tional effects, liberated anomie increases Generation
Nexters’ tolerance of risk behaviors and normalizes
these behaviors as common experience in this cohort.
Liberated anomie is a defining feature of Generation
Next, allowing young adults to hold wide latitudes
of acceptance for both health and risk behaviors.
Hyperindividualism
Traditionally, the transition from adolescence to
adulthood is marked by an emphasis on independ-
ence, including accepting responsibility for one’s self,
making decisions and becoming financially inde-
pendent from parents.6 Generation Nexters, how-
ever, have retained strong ties to the home; 40% still
live in the family home and 73% have received fi-
nancial help from their parents in the last 12 months.7
This generation is accustomed to being the center
of both their and their families’ worlds. Having grown
up in a protected and child-centered era, they view
themselves as “special,” vital as a group to the na-
tion and to their parents’ sense of purpose.8 Indeed,
these feelings extend even to their cohort, with 68%
of Generation Nexters agreeing that their generation
is unique, although unable to find a word or phrase
to characterize themselves.7
Although many have not asserted their indepen-
dence in the traditional American sense, a new way
that Generation Next marks their transition to
adulthood is through the creation of an online iden-
tity. They are the first generation to have grown up
with the internet and have adopted new technolo-
gies to maintain existing ties with friends and family
and to forge new social ties online.7 To Durkheim,
Liberated anomie in Generation Next
the rituals of physical interaction are paramount to
social integration and group consciousness.9 However,
for Generation Next, these rituals have become
technologic and interaction occurs largely via e-mail,
cell phones, and social networking sites. In the ab-
sence of physical density, social interactions occur
without specified structure and norms without
regulation. Generation Next’s lack of emotional at-
tachment to online ties and shift from traditional
notions of community to diffuse virtual networks
have reinforced their creation of distinctive, inde-
pendent selves. Growing up with reality shows,
this generation has seen people become famous be-
cause of who they are, rather than what they do.
Television shows such as “The Real World” glorify
hyperindividualism. Even shows that focus nominally
on skill, such as “American Idol,” “The Apprentice,”
and “Survivor” revel in personality and “rags to
riches” story lines. In the New York Magazine article
on Generation Next, Nussbaum10 cites three changes
responsible for the shift to individualistic values
among Generation Next: (1) “They think of them-
selves as having an audience”; (2) “They have ar-
chived their adolescence”; and (3) “Their skin is
thicker than [ours].”10 She asserts that we are en-
countering the greatest generation gap since “rock
and roll.” Rather than defining themselves in school
and business life, Generation Next is creating on-
line identities that trumpet their individuality while
remaining dependent on family for financial support.
In addition to glorifying the unique self, Gener-
ation Nexters value acceptance of other unique
selves to the detriment of civic life and social
causes. Raised during the Clinton administration,
Generation Next has developed a distinctive set of
political views that value tolerance and facilitate
disengagement from civil society. They are signifi-
cantly more tolerant of homosexuality and racial
diversity than previous generations and believe that
the government should do more to help individuals
succeed in life.7,11 Echoing President Clinton’s push
to redefine “welfare as we know it,” this generation
believes that it is the government’s duty to help peo-
ple become more self-reliant.11 Comfortable with
federal leadership, Generation Nexters trust politi-
cal leaders more than previous generations; however,
only 40% believe that it is their duty as citizens to
always vote and feel significantly less guilty than
their predecessors when they miss a vote.7 Unlike
their predecessors, Generation Next believes that
government regulation is positive, although it also
believes that corporations generally do a good job
striking a balance between profits and the public
interest.7 Generation Next is trusting and tolerant
of both the government and business, and believes
that “the system” will work problems out if it is
set up appropriately.
43
If trust in “the system” allows Generation Next to
remain civically inactive, then exposure to the media
permits social inactivity. In line with Lazarsfeld and
Merton’s theory of “narcotizing dysfunction,”12
Generation Nexters believe that they are contrib-
uting to social causes by gaining knowledge via the
media and making friends online. By entrusting the
government to “help individuals succeed in life,”
Generation Next feels less obliged to pursue careers
in service to others and to the community compared
with previous generations.7 Generation Nexters are
considered more tolerant and less traditional than
Generation X, but they acknowledge that they are
less conscientious with respect to civic duties and
more likely to participate in risky behaviors.7 With
trust in the government and vicarious participation
in social action through the media, Generation
Nexters justify remaining socially inactive and ap-
athetic to social life, aiming to become rich and
famous rather than serve the “greater good.”7
Extreme Consumerism
Durkheim wrote that “to pursue a goal which is by
definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a
state of perpetual unhappiness.”9 America’s con-
sumer market encourages one to constantly upgrade,
improve, and acquire more material goods. In an in-
creasingly individualized and media-saturated world,
previous opportunities to define the self in face-
to-face interactions in society have been replaced
by exposure to mass media. In this environment, the
social aspect has been replaced by the market.13
Thompson14 argues that the media provides “sym-
bolic resources” for the production of a “mediated
self” that is constantly desirous of new products to
consume. America’s consumer capitalism is a “social
form that depends on the reproduction of desiring
selves whose longing for purchasable pleasures is
continuously stimulated by an ever expanding mar-
ket.”15 “You are what you buy” in this new approach
to marketing and consumption, but there is never an
end to the process of defining the self. Constantly
surrounded by desire, this marketing society threat-
ens to condemn its participants to Durkheim’s state
of “perpetual unhappiness.”
Generation Next’s characteristics are not an acci-
dent of history or measurement: they are the “predi-
ctable product of our consumer-driven postmodern
society.”8 As the first generation to be born into
this environment of modern consumerism, Gen-
eration Nexters’ consistent exposure to it “natu-
ralizes the market as the prime site of personal
happiness and social good.”15 Raised in an era where
the child was the center of the family, Generation
Nexters commanded a larger share of their family’s
44
buying power than any previous generation.16 Gen-
eration Nexters were the first age cohort to know
“commoditoys”: “highly specific and rapidly obso-
lete” products such as Tickle Me Elmo Extreme,
which improved upon the old Tickle Me Elmo with
mechanized writing and enhanced talking ability.15
Unlike previous generations that played with balls,
blocks, and jump ropes that never become obsolete,
Generation Nexters have grown up with the con-
tinual cycle of “new and improved” products, the
market playing constantly on their notions of scar-
city.17 The integration of technology into toys has
accelerated this process even more, making prod-
ucts such as Gameboys obsolete 6 months after
they are released.
Generation Next has maintained their habit of un-
ceasing consumption into adulthood, although their
incomes cannot support their desires. Dubbed “the
ultimate “homo consumeriscus” by Bakewell and
Mitchell,18 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’
Consumer Expenditure Surveys show that Generation
Nexter households spend 116% of their income.19
While each successive generation puts a greater value
on wealth, Generation Next is especially prone to
materialistic goals due to its high exposure to tel-
evision and other media.18,20 This generation’s expo-
sure to luxury goods through television has socialized
them to extreme levels of consumption and has been
facilitated by easy access to consumer credit and
the expansion of designer brands such as Coach and
Prada.18 Generation Nexters are more likely than
other age groups to assume that a product is superior
because of its high price, and are more motivated
than their predecessors to buy new versions of prod-
ucts they already own.21 Fully believing that “you
are what you buy,” Generation Nexters are attracted
to “cause-related marketing” such as the Product
Red Campaign, because they allow individuals to
contribute to “the fight against HIV/AIDS” without
actually participating in it. Attribution theory ex-
plains that cause-related marketing products are
especially useful to Generation Nexters because
they believe consuming these products help frame
themselves positively.22
Generation Next’s consumerist attitudes have
extended to their experience in higher education.
University instructors have noticed that the current
cohort of undergraduates approach their education
not as an opportunity for personal transformation,
but a transaction where they “buy” a degree.8 While
this cohort shows signs of being the least studious
in history, the most prone to boredom, and the most
likely to be late to class, they also have the highest
expectations of personal academic success.23 Indeed,
this cohort has been raised to believe that they
are special just for being themselves and deserving
of good grades for the effort rather than the product
J.J. Huang et al
they produced. In this new consumer-orientated
academic environment, “students seek instant grat-
ification, look for the best deal, want to negotiate,
and might become litigious if disappointed.”8 This
generation of students wants to “get their money’s
worth” of schooling, then disengage from the uni-
versity environment at the end of the day. Indeed,
after high participation rates in community activi-
ties in high school, Generation Next university stu-
dents are significantly less likely to join college
organizations, perhaps because their previous par-
ticipation was in response to community service
requirements and parental encouragement.8 This
transformation of the university education experi-
ence from a social to a capitalist experience has de-
creased students’ opportunities for close ties to their
community and left them isolated, self-interested
consumers amongst a sea of like-minded students
and confused faculty and staff. Generation Nexters
consume as a way to define themselves in a society
that has few opportunities to create strong, real-life
ties to individuals.
Social Isolationism
According to the Pew Research Center report,7 54%
of all Generation Nexters surveyed have used a social
networking site like MySpace or Facebook; among
users, 82% had created a personal profile and 91%
responded that most of their friends used social
networking websites. While early research on the
formation of these sites indicated that network ties
online would translate into face-to-face contact,
current research suggests that social networking site
users use these sites to maintain existing offline ties
or to create online ties to those with whom they
have an “offline connection.”24
By creating weak ties to others online, Ellison
et al24 argue that young adults create “bridging” so-
cial capital, which serves to leverage the “strength
of weak ties.”25 Unlike Granovetter and Marks25 de-
scription of the strength of a tie as a “combination
of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the
intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal
services which characterize the tie,” recent publica-
tions on online ties cite “(a) proximity and frequency
of contact; (b) self-presentation; (c) similarity; (d)
reciprocity; and (e) expectations and idealizations”
as the pertinent relationship characteristics.26 In line
with Putnam’s argument in “Bowling Alone,”27 the
use of technology for leisure has eroded traditional
notions of community for Generation Nexters. By re-
placing characteristics of the interaction (i.e. inti-
macy and emotional intensity) with characteristics
of the individuals (i.e. self-presentation and similar-
ity), Generation Nexters engage socially without
Liberated anomie in Generation Next
face-to-face contact, create networks that lack
social cohesion and are alienated from civic life.28
To develop ties online, Generation Nexters must
construct and manage their virtual identities. They
define and redefine the social context of their in-
teractions and determine important features of their
identities to be highlighted in specific situations.29
By the same token, the open nature of communica-
tion and the lack of privacy24 on social networking
sites allow others to contribute to the formation of
one’s identity. While research on blogging indicates
that there are inherent rules to manage information,
identity and network relationships,30 cyberbullying,
including the public posting of private messages,
pictures, or rumors about individuals, indicates a lack
of social control online.31 Indeed, cyberbullying has
become a cultural pastime, as in the case of John
Fitzgerald, whose obnoxious Match.com email was
posted on the Gawker.com blog, discussed through-
out the internet, and eventually made its way onto
national news.32,33 Internet use among Generation
Nexters was filtered and monitored by parents dur-
ing adolescence; as adults, they have unrestricted
use of the internet and freedom to represent them-
selves without supervision. Weak regulation of on-
line behavior provides individuals the opportunity
to develop unique identities and to contribute to
others’ identities, but does not provide the structure
in which to situate social roles or dictate appropriate
social action. Rather than strengthening social ties
among young people, websites such as MySpace
and Facebook replace offline relationships with weak
online relationships, where the self is constantly
redefined and social norms are in continual flux.
The recent transition to developing social relation-
ships online creates dense, unregulated networks of
unregulated weak ties, which lead Generation
Nexters to become isolated, disengaged and anomic.
Discussion
According to Durkheim,9 anomic suffering is the
result of loss of social regulation: appetites are no
longer limited and sense of purpose wanes. Anomie
produces disengagement, disenfranchisement, and
depression.9 For Generation Next, technology pro-
vides the means of interaction and the individual self
is above governance by social norms, so civic and so-
cial engagement are unnecessary. Rather than suffer,
Generation Nexters exhibit a liberated anomie; for
them, disengagement is a defining feature of the
cohort experience.
According to Hirschi,34 “delinquent acts occur
when an individual’s bond to society is weak or bro-
ken.” The radical shifts in all four types of Hirschi’s
social bonds (attachment, commitment, involvement
45
and beliefs) among Generation Next signal a decline
in traditional social bonds. By participating in society
through consumption of media, technology and
material goods, Generation Nexters have become
“computer-chair observers” of civic life. Their in-
creased tolerance of diversity may also indicate
consumption of socially-acceptable beliefs and a
new application of “narcotizing dysfunction,” where
buy-in to tolerant views requires less energy or or-
ganized social action.12 Their apathy for social
causes may be further evidence of the shift from the
community-oriented and socially active culture of
their parents to the current period of “individual
ascendency.”2 By consuming ideas, beliefs, and so-
cial ties rather than forging these ideas and attach-
ments through group rituals, Generation Next must
find new ways to create social bonds that provide
instant gratification.
The ability to disengage from society without
risking financial, emotional, or social strain is a func-
tion of the class, education, and wealth of this sub-
set of Generation Nexters. While many individuals
utilize cell phones and the internet, marginalized
groups within Generation Next may have limited ac-
cess to technology and consume less due to finan-
cial constraints. Marginalized groups remain part
of Generation Next and are subject to the same co-
hort experiences, although liberated anomie may
not extend to them in the same way. These groups
within Generation Next may be more likely to ex-
perience the depression and disenfranchisement typ-
ically associated with Durkheim’s anomie if structural
disadvantage creates anomic social conditions where
individuals question the benefits of basic cultural
values (e.g. attainment of education) and seek short-
term gratification.35 Regardless of the mechanism,
the effect of both liberated anomie and traditional
anomie among Generation Next is a widespread
tolerance of risk behavior.35
For Generation Next, the presence of health mes-
sages has been consistent throughout their lives, but
the messages have changed as scientific knowledge
has developed; the discourse of industry and science
in the media has led to the consumption of these
messages without the need to engage with them.
Young adults may be more likely to engage in risk
behaviors because they do not feel that the mes-
sage relates directly to them. One study of smoking
cessation on college campuses found that young
adults felt that public media campaigns on smoking
had been geared to either teens or older adults and
stated simply “if the message doesn’t speak to me,
I don’t hear it.”36 Young adults engaged in risky be-
haviors have lower perceptions of risk37 and minimize
the “harm associated with periodic health-threatening
activities.”38 Additionally, online exposure to risk be-
haviors may create a false consensus effect about
46
the pervasiveness of risk-taking, creating vulnerabil-
ity to normative fallacy, which is the overestimation
of the number of peers who engage in a certain risk
behavior.39 Indeed, Generation Nexters believe that
they participate in risk behaviors more than previous
generations. They identify themselves as having
more casual sex, engaging in more binge drinking
and using more illegal drugs.7 With the widespread
use of social networking sites and YouTube with pic-
tures and videos portraying risk behaviors, the in-
ternet may serve more to normalize risk behaviors
than to control them.40
In a study of values and HIV/AIDS risk behavior
among college students, Chernoff and Davison41
found three important value differences that relate
to the characteristics of Generation Next. The desire
to consume experiences and to retain individuality
resonates with the findings that sensation-seeking
was predictive of higher-risk behavior and that risky
sexual behavior was inversely associated with values
concerning the welfare of others. Additionally, the
lack of social control and its impact on self control
show that individuals placing less importance on
self-control and self-discipline were more likely to
engage in risky sexual behavior.41 Generation Next’s
tolerance and hyperindividualism permit the con-
struction of self-interested values congruous with
the adoption of risk behaviors. With ritual physical
interactions replaced by technologic interactions,
Generation Nexters may seek to develop new rituals
that simultaneously validate their consumption and
hyperindividualistic beliefs while providing the op-
portunity for social connection. The growth of social
smoking and receptiveness to tobacco promotions
at social gatherings among young adults,42 as well as
the perceived increase in casual sex,7 suggest that
these new rituals are becoming normative. They
provide the opportunity to connect with others off-
line without compromising their beliefs or indi-
vidualism. Social tolerance, combined with limited
engagement with health messages in the media and
lack of social control allow young adults wide lati-
tude to accept health risk behavior.
Conclusion
The Generation Nexters’ experiences with hyper-
individualism, extreme consumerism, and social
isolationism has created hypertolerance for deviant
behaviors. Key features of successful public health
messages will reduce normative fallacy related to
risk behaviors among young adults, appeal to the
individual and provide opportunities to consume
products or services related to the message. Most
importantly, public health must be part of the cre-
ation of new rituals, both online and offline, so
J.J. Huang et al
that social consciousness and social control can
be developed in concert with the core values of
Generation Next.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control. Live Births, Birth Rates, and
Fertility Rates, by Race: United States, 1909−2000. Avail-
able at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x01.
pdf [Date accessed: December 14, 2007]
2. Coombs MD. Understanding the historical and cultural in-
fluences that shape generations. New Dir Stud Serv 2004;
106:17−31.
3. Elder GH, Shanahan MJ, Clipp EC. When war comes to men’s
lives: life-course patterns in family, work, and health. Psychol
Aging 1994;9:5−16.
4. Elder GH. The life course as developmental theory. Child Dev
1998;69:1−12.
5. Cote S. Criminological Theories: Bridging the Past to the
Future. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002:96.
6. Arnett JJ. Conceptions of the transition to adulthood: per-
spectives from adolescence through midlife. J Adult Dev
2001;8:133−43.
7. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
How Young People View Their Lives, Futures and Politics: A
Portrait of “Generation Next”. Available at: http://people-
press.org/reports/pdf/300.pdf [Date accessed: December
12, 2007]
8. Taylor ML. Generation NeXt: Today’s Postmodern Student−
Meeting, Teaching, and Serving. 2005 Collection of Papers on
Self-Study and Institutional Improvement, Higher Learning
Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.
taylorprograms.org/resourceslinks.html.
9. Durkheim E. Suicide. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul,
1970:248. [Original work published 1897]
10. Nussbaum E. Kids, the Internet, and the End of Privacy: the
Greatest Generation Gap Since Rock and Roll. New York
Magazine. Available at: http://nymag.com/news/features/
27341 [Date accessed: March 5, 2007]
11. Greenberg M. Cape Asbestos, Barking, health and environ-
ment: 1928−1946. Am J Ind Med 2003;43:109−19.
12. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK. Mass communication, popular taste
and organized social action. In: Marris P, Thornham S, eds.
Media Studies: A Reader, 2nd edition. New York: NYU Press,
2000:18−30.
13. O’Neill J. The Missing Child in Liberal Theory: Towards
a Convent Theory of Family, Community, Welfare and the
Civic State. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press,
1994.
14. Thompson JB. The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory
of the Media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1995.
15. Langer B. Consuming anomie: children and global commercial
culture. Childhood 2005;12:259−71.
16. Holt DB. Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: conceptualizing
the social patterning of consumption in postmodernity.
J Consum Res 1997;23:326−50.
17. Cialdini RB. Influence: Science and Practice, 4th edition.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
18. Bakewell C, Mitchell VW. Generation Y female consumer
decision-making styles. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 2003;31:
95−106.
19. Francese P. Ahead of the next wave. Am Demogr 2003;
Sep: 42−3.
Liberated anomie in Generation Next
20. Mitchell VW. The Official Guide to Generations: Who They are,
how They Live, What They Think. Ithaca: New Strategist
Publications, 1995.
21. Roberts MA, Manolie C. Baby boomers and busters: an
exploratory investigation of attitudes towards advertising
and consumerism. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2000;16:
481−97.
22. Heider F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York:
Wiley, 1958.
23. Astin AW, Oseguea L, Sax JL, et al. The American Freshman:
Thirty-five Year Trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA, 2002.
24. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook
‘‘friends:’’ social capital and college students’ use of online
social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun 2007;12:
1143−68.
25. Granovetter, Mark S. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol
1973;78:1360−80.
26. Thayer SE, Ray S. Online communication preferences across
Age, gender, and duration of internet use. Cyberpsychol Behav
2006;9:432−40.
27. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital.
J Democracy 1995;6:65−78.
28. Rusciano FL. ‘Surfing Alone’: The Relationships Among
Internet Communities, Public Opinion, Anomie, and Civic
Participation. Available at: http://www.publicopinionpros.
com/features/2005/apr/rusciano.asp [Date accessed:
December 12, 2007]
29. Talamo A, Ligorio B. Strategic Identities in Cyberspace.
CyberPsychol Behav 2001;4:109−22.
30. Schmidt J. Blogging practices: an analytical framework.
J Comput Mediat Commun 2007;12:1409−27.
31. Lenhart A. Cyberbullying and Online Teens. Pew Internet &
American Life Project, 2007.
32. Gawker.com (October 11, 2007). Douchebags: Nightmare
online dater John Fitzgerald is worst person in the world.
47
Available at: http://gawker.com/news/douchebags/night-
mare-online-dater-john-fitzgerald-page-is-the-worst-person-
in-the-world-309684.php [Date accessed: December 16,
2007]
33. Gawker.com (November 20, 2007). “If this could happen to
an Ivy League grad, someone with an IQ like mine, this
could happen to anybody.” Available at: http://gawker.
com/news/john-fitzgerald-page/if-this-could-happen-
to-an-ivy-league-grad-someone-with-an-iq-like-mine-
this-could-happen-to-anybody-324920.php [Date accessed:
December 16, 2007]
34. Hirschi T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 1969:16.
35. Browning CR, Cagney KA. Moving beyond poverty: neigh-
borhood structure, social processes, and health. J Health Soc
Behav 2003;44:552−71.
36. Staten RR, Ridner SL. College students’ perspectives on
smoking cessation: “If the message doesn’t speak to me,
I don’t hear it”. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2006;28:101−15.
37. Johnson RJ, McCaul KD, Klein WM. Risk involvement and
risk perception among adolescents and young adults. J Behav
Med 2002;25:67−82.
38. Cohn LD, Macfarlane S, Yanez C, et al. Risk-perception: dif-
ferences between adolescents and adults. Health Psychol
1995;14:217−22.
39. Cunningham JA, Selby PL. Implications of the normative
fallacy in young adult smokers aged 19−24 years. Am J
Public Health 2007;97:1399−400.
40. Freeman B, Chapman S. Is “YouTube” telling or selling you
something? Tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing
website. Tobacco Control 2007;16:207−10.
41. Chernoff RA, Davison GC. Values and their relationship to
HIV/AIDS risk behavior among late-adolescent and young
adult college students. Cognit Ther Res 1999;23:453−68.
42. Biener L, Albers AB. Young adults: vulnerable new targets
of tobacco marketing. Am J Public Health 2004;94:326−30.