Over more than two decades of leading research teams in exploring the motivations and beliefs of young people, I have had many conversations about the steps researchers must take to avoid misrepresenting data. I also believe we researchers have a responsibility to do our best to discourage those who use and share our data from inadvertently doing so. One real danger is that it is all too easy to lift only the data points from a study that appear to support a particular narrative. The more that happens, the more another real danger is created, as described in a recent CNN article: “Bias is shaping the way we talk about [generations], allowing stereotypes and myths to drown out facts and reality.”

For example, a McKinsey Health Institute study earlier this year reported, “Gen Z’s social media engagement can feel negative but can also help with finding mental health support and connectivity.” This led to such overgeneralizations in the media as “new data…shows just how damaging [social media use] is to Gen Zers…[who] are more likely than other generations to cite negative feelings about social media.” Readers could get the impression that social media damages all young people and they know it but continue to use the platforms anyway. But those weren’t the study’s findings.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding are common in reports about the activities of a generation; it’s not a new phenomenon. For instance, as the CNN article mentioned, most of us believe all younger boomers were opposed to the war in Vietnam, though research shows this is not the case. In fact, the boomer (1946-64) generation as a category illustrates overgeneralization in itself; Americans born in 1946 when electric clothes dryers were new inventions led very different lives from those who grew up watching NASA send astronauts to the moon.

And remember the 2016 presidential election? Polls nationwide predicted a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump; the widespread miss caused at least one prominent pollster reportedly to say that “the public’s right to question polls is justified.” Many pollsters and media outlets also predicted a huge turnout among voters aged 18-29 for the 2016 presidential election. In reality, with an estimated 50 percent turnout among that age group, young voters cast 19 percent of all votes, the same as in 2012. Yes, it’s something to celebrate when so many young people vote; conversely, it means half of people this age aren’t being heard from. 

Media and research reporting outlets are not the only entities that assume the traits and behaviors of a small group can be applied to a larger population. I see many causes and nonprofits overgeneralize when thinking about their audiences, making such assumptions as: “This is how our donors engage”; “Older donors give only this way”; “Our advocates need this type of support from us”; and “Our volunteers want to interact in this manner.” When these beliefs are based on what an organization knows about a relatively limited number of individuals from each audience, the inherent bias and oversimplification will cause marketers and fundraisers to be less effective. Thus, before using historical or current data, be sure to examine the sources of the information compared to your targets and the quality, objectivity, and breadth of its collection process. 

Potential overgeneralizations and biases like those I’ve discussed here spark lively conversations with my research team members, but I welcome them. Questions and challenges throughout the research process, from writing survey questions to producing your final research analysis, ensure a researcher’s objectivity and help us present findings clearly and accurately.

As you strategize about how best to reach your audiences, I encourage you to view generational labels with caution. At the same time, I hope researchers, funding organizations, and media outlets will examine how they produce, support, and share research data on the behaviors of groups of people.

Derrick Feldmann (@derrickfeldmann) is the founder of the Millennial Impact Project, lead researcher at Cause & Social Influence, and the author of The Corporate Social Mind. See Derrick’s related articles in Philanthropy News Digest, “Nurturing a community for the greatest impact” and “Creating symbiosis between marketing and advocacy.” He also is managing director, Ad Council Research Institute and the Ad Council Edge Strategic Consultancy.