Moral clarity

First Globals™ are the generation least likely to agree that “more often than not, wars are a conflict between good and evil.” According to Zogby data, 31% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree with this statement, compared to 51% of those aged over 65, with other age groups’ opinions falling somewhere in between.

This suggests that First Globals™ might be less likely to perceive complex international conflicts in black and white terms. On the other hand, the prominence of youth activists as well as Zogby data on humanitarian interventions suggest that, when First Globals™ do perceive a conflict as a conflict between good and evil, they are more likely to demand military action to rectify it.

Does this propensity of First Globals™ to act for humanitarian reasons make them easier to be manipulated or are they protected from it by their tendency to see the world in shades of gray? What is your view?

A good reason

First Globals™ are much more likely than other age groups to say that “protection of human rights” gives America a right to intervene in other countries’ foreign affairs, with 48% of First Globals™ choosing that as a legitimate reason to intervene compared to only 23% of Americans over 65. They are also the generation least likely to say that “protection of America’s own interests” gives the U.S. a right to intervene in other countries’ affairs, with only 28% of them recognizing such right compared to 44% of Americans over 65.

If First Globals™ keep these views as they grow older, once agreed-upon principle of sovereignty appears to be destined for oblivion. In your view, is that going to make the world more or less peaceful?

Money first

First Globals™ are least likely generation to agree that “economic freedom is the foundation of all other freedoms” and most likely to agree that “cultural and social freedom is more important than economic freedom.” In a November 2008 Zogby survey, 34% of First Globals™ agreed with the former, and 52% agreed with the latter. The next youngest generation – those between ages of 30 and 40 – endorsed the former by 48% and the latter by 38%.

Do First Globals™ put more weight on social and cultural freedom because of their stronger connection to to global culture? Or are they relatively less interested in economic freedom because they earn less money? How important is economic freedom to you?

A matter of trust

First Globals™ are the least likely of any generation to agree that “In God We Trust” should be kept on display over the Speaker’s podium in the U.S. Capitol Building -- 41.3% of First Globals™ either disagreed or were not sure that this inscription should be kept over the podium, compared to 27.2% of those 30-49, 25.0% of those 50-64, and 18.8% of those over 65.

Why do you think First Globals™ are least likely to agree that the inscription should be kept? Do they place a greater value (or perhaps are more aware of) religious pluralism in America? What do you think about the inscription – are these just words that can (or should) be eliminated if circumstances warrant, or is there a historical significance to this phrase and this inscription that means it should be displayed regardless?

Army strong

Of all age groups, First Globals™ are most likely to believe that “armies cause wars” (25%) over “armies prevent wars” (50%). For comparison, among those over 65, 11% believe armies cause wars and 74% believe armies prevent wars. First Globals™ are also the most undecided group, with 25% opting for a “not sure” option.

However, a plurality of people in every age-group believe that armies prevent wars instead of cause wars. The argument for prevention is that armies deter other armies. But some argue that, if there were no armies, there would be less to deter from. What is your view?

Can we talk?

First Globals™ are the least likely generation to believe the government should censor talk radio, though all generations overwhelmingly reject censhorship when this question is asked. When asked whether the government should or should not be allowed to censor what political opinions are heard on talk radio, 85.5% of First Globals™ answered the government should not be allowed to censor, compared to 82.3% of those 30-49, 83.7% of those 50-64, and 84.0% of those over 65.

Do you think First Globals™ are the most likely generation to reject censorship of any kind, or do you think their high tendency to reject censorship for this question is related to the question’s all-encompassing nature? What do you think the results would be if people were asked whether they approved of the government acting to eliminate hate speech or racist commentary on the radio?

Getting better all the time

When asked whether they and their family will be better or worse off in a year, First Globals™ are the most likely of any generation to believe they will be better off -- 38.6% of First Globals™ believe they will be better off in a year, compared to 26.0% of those 30-49, 19.6% of those 50-64, and 13.7% of those over 65.

What do you think accounts for First Globals™’ optimism? Are they more likely (for example) to be in good health and have less financial obligations and thus more likely to feel like they will be better off in a year? Are older generations more cynical and thus less likely to feel like they will be better off in a year? What do you think?

The Quest for Fairness

Among all age groups, First Globals™ are most likely to agree that “affirmative action levels the playing field,” as opposed to “affirmative action rewards some groups at the expense of others.” Overall, 34% of First Globals™ agree with the former (either strongly or somewhat), compared to 28% of those over 65.

However, a majority of all generations sees affirmative action as rewarding some groups at expense of others.

Is a relative preference for affirmative action among First Globals™ a sign of growing popularity of those measures -- or is the overall unpopularity a sign that affirmative action is fading? What is your view of affirmative action?

The Video Game Frontier

If one is to quickly reflect on the history of video games, an obvious trend can be summed up with two words: "no limits."

Years ago, older generations enjoyed their time with board games, card games, and of course the classic pinball machine. In the late 70s and early 80s, youth indulged in games like "Pong," "Donkey Kong," and Space invaders" when they were early adolescents (and perhaps many haven't stopped). But it was the First Globals who were introduced to the more graphically sophisticated games. Since the introduction of the original Nintendo, the games have become increasingly violent, almost to the point where even some of the most ardent video gamers express concern -- from "Mortal Combat's" blood battles in dungeons, in which the gamer is to execute his or her opponent in a gruesome fashion, to the ever increasingly psychopathic "Grand Theft Auto" series, in which the player has to fulfill mob missions including selling drugs, stealing cars, and making hits.

How far will game producers take it? Does this have any psychological and/or social impacts on individuals, especially those who are frequent gamers, or will the pendulum shift and adolescents (and adults too) will revisit either more simple or less violent games? Or will a new unknown style surface, and what might it look like?

Shop 'till you drop

When asked which department store they would select if they could only shop at one department store for the rest of their life, First Globals™ are the most likely of any generation to say Target and the least likely of any generation to say Wal-Mart. More than a third (35.6%) of First Globals™ selected Target as the one store they would shop at for the rest of their life, compared to 25.6% of those 30-49, 15.5% of those 50-64, and 8.9% of those over 65. With Wal-Mart, the reverse pattern is found: 21.2% of First Globals™ selected Wal-Mart, compared to 26.1% of those 30-49, 27% of those 50-64, and 29.3% of those over 65.

Target and Wal-Mart carry similar merchandise and both tout their low prices, so what do you think accounts for the discrepancy? Has Target successfully marketed itself to better appeal to younger shoppers? How? Or do you think there is a difference in the quality or kinds of things for sale at Target and Wal-Mart? And where would you shop if you could only shop at one store for the rest of your life?

Hip First Globals™

OMG: Slang is Invading Everyday English! claims a recent article posted on NPR.com. David Crystal, a professor of Linguistics quoted in the article, says he “see(s) a brand new variety of language evolving, invented really by young people... It's extraordinary.” A more diverse media and entertainment industry has also contributed to the similarly diverse slang used by First Globals™.

Take a moment to listen to First Globals™ (and yourself) and you may notice that despite differing backgrounds, certain catch phrases and slang that were once common among one community have become more widely accepted.

What are some specific examples of catch phrases or slang that you have accepted into your vocabulary which were previously outside of your network? How did it become a habit? Is slang something you are likely to use in both formal and informal situations and how important is it to your identity?

Money, that's what I want.

While First Globals™ are the generation most likely to contribute to a cause through the Internet, they are not the most likely generation to contribute to a political campaign through the Internet. When asked whether they have contributed to “a cause” through the Internet in the past year, 63.3% of First Globals™ answered yes, compared to 47.2% of those 30-49, 40.3% of those 50-64, and 28.1% of those over 65. However, when asked whether they had ever made a contribution to a political campaign online, 43.7% of First Globals™ said yes, compared to 47.3% of those 30-49, 45.9% of those 50-64, and 37.8% of those over 65.


How do you interpret these results? Do First Globals™ care about a broader range of causes then those espoused by political candidates and political parties? Are First Globals™ less involved or interested in politics than older generations? Do you think that nonpolitical organizations do a better job managing and spending donations than political parties or candidates? Are you more likely to donate to political or non-political organizations?

Who, me?

Do Americans live within their means? Most believe they do (whether they actually do, or not). For example, 78% of First Globals™ say they live within their means and 89% of those over 65 say so as well. Is there anybody that doesn’t? Yes: Most other Americans. In the same survey, 88% of First Globals™ disagreed with the statement that “most Americans live within their means”. And, remarkably, just 4% are ‘not sure’ about this issue.

Are Americans too easy on themselves conveniently redefining frugal livings to fit their own behavior? Or are they too harsh on others because consumption is more conspicuous than saving? Perhaps, when answering questions about themselves, people rely on their own experiences, while, when answering questions about others they draw on many times repeated clichés about waste and over-spending. What is your view?

This is our country

First Globals™ are the least likely of any generation to agree that they "support their country, right or wrong". Only 33.6% of First Globals™ agreed, compared to 45.7% of those 30-49, 46.7% of those 50-65, and 57.8% of those over 65.

Why would First Globals™ be the least likely to agree? Do you think they would be most likely to agree that dissent is patriotic? Will First Globals™ continue to hold these views as they get older, or is disagreeing to support your country right or wrong a view primarily held by young people only?

Family Guy

President Bush recently praised Barack Obama by saying: “I know his girls are on his mind and he wants to make sure that first and foremost, he is a good dad.'' But how important it is for the rest of the country that Obama is a good dad? Do we really want his girls to be the first thing on his mind?

It is common in American politics that politicians parade around with their families and stress the central place these hold in their lives. When American politicians have experienced family troubles, such as extra-marital affairs, it has distracted from – and in some cases, destroyed – their political careers. But, this is not necessarily the case in other parts of the world. It would seem a great presidential family is not always directly related to – and much less a precondition of -- a great presidency.

What happened to the mall?

A recent article in Newsweek magazine poses the question: is the mall dead? The article notes that last year was the first year in half a century where a new indoor mall did not open somewhere in the country. Another recent article notes the high retail vacancy rate in regional malls. Others write that fast-growing “lifestyle centers” – open-air developments that contain some mix of shopping, office space, entertainment, outdoor parks, recreational facilities and housing – are replacing regional and local malls as the new shopping destination of choice.

However, the Newsweek article lays some of the blame for traditional malls’ decline on anti-consumption and pro-environment and fair labor sentiments held by the public. They report that 40% of First Globals prefer to purchase items that are “socially conscious” – ie, environmentally safe and produced through fair labor – and that traditional malls have little to offer that fits this description.

What do you think? Is the rise in the anti-consumption and pro-environment attitudes detailed by Newsweek responsible for the waning fortunes of shopping malls, or are factors like the growth of lifestyle centers and Internet shopping more responsible? Does the economic uncertainty of consumers mean that all shopping centers (and not just malls) are likely to close or have economic difficulties of their own? With the holiday season fast approaching, where do you plan to do most of your shopping – in a mall, or elsewhere?

Killing me softly

Of all age-groups, First Globals are the most likely to say that the US has an obligation to intervene militarily in foreign countries to protect basic human rights, with 49% expressing this view and 31% disagreeing. For comparison, just 29% of those over 65 endorse this view and 51% disagree with it.

Defenders of this view usually argue that there are some violations of human rights that are so clear-cut and egregious that they demand that national sovereignty be violated for the greater good. Others believe that simplistic narratives of good vs. evil are likely to be manufactured by warring factions in order to have major powers intervene on their behalf. In your view, were there any justified military humanitarian interventions in the past few decades? What were they?

Save the Earth

While First Globals are the most likely of any generation to describe themselves as environmentalists, they are also the least likely of any generation to recycle. Slightly more than half (53.9%) of First Globals consider themselves environmentalists, compared to 44.5% of those 30-49, 51.9% of those 50-64, and 49.0% of those over 65. Yet when asked how often they recycle, 57.3% of First Globals recycle “always” or “most of the time”, compared to 63.6% of those 30-49, 67.3% of those 50-64, and 72.1% of those over 65.

Why would First Globals be the most likely to call themselves environmentalists while simultaneously being the least likely to recycle? Is “environmentalist” merely a label that some First Globals (and others) adapt because it is politically correct? Or are First Globals not yet settled enough in their home lives and living situations to recycle on a consistent basis? Do you think First Globals will recycle more as they get older, or are they content to label themselves as environmentalists without doing things like recycling?

First Global: A Personal View on 2008 Election

Jeremy Zogby, a First Global and active commentator at our blog, wrote two opinion pieces on the 2008 election (see the links in the right-hand column). One piece describes his own Obama experience throughout the entire election and the other piece focuses on the bond/connection he perceives between Obama and the First Globals. How similar or different is your election experience compared to Jeremy’s? Do you want to share your election stories with us? Do you agree with him that Obama is the first “First Global” president?

Rainbow Bradleys?

Our research indicates that First Globals are more likely than older generations to hold liberal positions on issues involving same-sex relationships. According to our survey, 31% of Americans support amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but only 15% of First Globals share this view. First Globals support gay marriage at a rate of 58%, compared to 24% of those over 65 and 42% of adults overall. Similarly, 64% of First Globals thought homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, compared to 52% of all adults.

However, recent elections saw the ban on gay marriage being passed relatively easily in California, Florida and Arizona and the same happened in Arkansas to the ban on gay couples adopting children. Did we just witness the gay version of the “Bradley effect”?

Open Election Thread

Here are a few statistical highlights regarding the First Global (youth 18-29) participation in the 2008 presidential election.

According to initial exit poll data, 66% of First Globals voted for Barack Obama and 32% voted for John McCain. This is the highest proportion of the First Global vote received by any one presidential candidate since exit polls began tracking votes by age groups in 1976. For comparison’s sake, John Kerry received 54% of the FG vote in 2004, Al Gore received 48% of the FG vote in 2000, and Bill Clinton received 53% and 43% of the FG vote in 1996 and 1992 respectively.

Furthermore, First Globals have increasingly diverged from the voting public as a whole. Obama received 66% of the First Global vote compared to 52% of the general vote, while Kerry received 54% of the FG vote compared to 48.1% of the general vote and Gore received 48.0% of the FG vote compared to 48.3% of the general vote. In all presidential elections between 1976 and 2000, the differences in proportion of votes received by the Democratic candidate between First Globals and the general population never exceeded 3.0%.

Turnout analysis is not yet complete but all indications are that this election will mark the largest First Global voter turnout since 1972 (when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18). Because turnout increased in all age groups, the proportion of the electorate represented by First Globals is likely to remain stable.

For further statistical analysis and discussion of young voters, we recommend the website of the very comprehensive Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, CIRCLE.

But we know statistics only tell part of the story, and that’s where you come in. We’d like to hear about your election experiences – whom did you vote for and why? When did you decide who to vote for? Do you feel youth had more of an impact in this election than in others? What will the youth role be in future elections? Did one campaign do a better job of reaching out to young voters? What do you think were the most important issues to young voters? What do you think President Obama’s first tasks should be?

liar liar!

In our survey, we put a few “trick questions” from what psychologists call “the lie scale” or “social desirability scale.” They consist of statements, such as “I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own,” which offer respondents a possibility to present themselves in a positive light at the price of saying what cannot possibly be true.

Overall, about a half of people tend to give socially desirable answers, but our data also show a clear pattern of an increasing tendency to give socially desirable answers as age increases. On question after question, the older respondents were increasingly more likely to say what they were “supposed” to say instead of what may be their true feelings. For example, First Globals are the most likely of all age groups to agree that they are sometimes irritated by people who ask favors from them - 56.8% compared to 36.5% of older generations.

Some would say that this means that younger people are more likely to be straight shooters and call it like it is. Others would say that young people are more egoistic and do not feel the pressure to even appear polite. Which view is closer to yours?

A voluntary response

When asked whether they have volunteered in their community in the past year, First Globals are the most likely of any generation surveyed to say they have -- 64.7% of First Globals volunteered, compared to 58.6% of those 30-49, 59.5% of those 50-64, and 58.1% of those over 65.

Why would First Globals be more likely to volunteer – do they have more free time? More energy? A greater sense of civic responsibility? More dedication to various causes? Other reasons? As this generation grows older, will they still volunteer in high numbers?

Edited to add:

One of commenters wonders how First Globals' patterns of volunteering vary by political ideology. Arthur Brooks, a scholar at Syracuse University and the author of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, has made a convincing case that self-identified conservatives are more likely to give to charity, volunteer, and civically engage with their communities than self-identified liberals.

However, when we analyze the responses to our question about volunteering by both age and ideology, our data for this question does not support Brooks' theory. 68.6% of First Globals who say their ideology is progressive or liberal have volunteered, compared to 67.9% of First Globals who say their ideology is moderate, 52.6% of First Globals who say their ideology is conservative or very conservative, and 54% of those who say their ideology is libertarian.

Similarly, of First Globals who identify themselves as Democrats, 74.1% have volunteered, compared to 59.4% of First Global Republicans and 52.3% of First Global Independents.

Get out the vote

First Globals are the generation most likely to say “yes” when asked if they would be more likely to vote if they could vote online rather than in person -- 41.2% percent of First Globals say yes, compared to 33.3% of those 30-49, 28.2% of those 50-64, and 21.5% of those over 65.

As all generations become more familiar with the Internet, are we likely to see the percentages of those saying “yes” increase in all age groups, or will Internet voting continue to be preferred only by the young? And is there any chance of online voting ever becoming a reality, or would it be too prone to glitches or too unlikely to be understood or used by some voters?

You are what you eat

For some people, what they choose to eat is linked to a greater environmental philosophy. For other people, food is just food, or the cost of eating with the environment in mind is prohibitively high. There is some indication that First Globals are no different than the rest of the population when it comes to their views on this issue. When asked whether they cared if their milk was hormone-free, 48.3% of First Globals either said yes or yes, but they will drink conventional milk occasionally. More than half (52.4%) of those 30-49, 50% of those 50-64, and 39.2% of those over 65 also felt this way.

We often assume that young people are more environmentally-minded. So why, then, is this an issue that seems to have little correlation with age? Or is the assumption that young people are more environmental incorrect?

Edited to add:
You can find some additional information and perspectives on the hormone-free milk debate here, here , and here. And according to this article from the Los Angeles Times, hormone-free milk can cost up to $1.50 more per half gallon than conventional milk.