“Older,Entitled,and Extremely Out-of-Touch”: Does “OK,Boomer” Signify the Emergence of a New Older Adult Stereotype?

Abstract

“OK, Boomer” is a phrase used to dismiss an older person for their perceived out-of-touch or offensive beliefs. The popularity of this retort suggests the presence of intergenerational tension; this study explores how the use of “OK, Boomer” relates to the current age stereotype literature. Results indicated that this literature base does not adequately capture how younger adults perceived the titular “Boomer,” and therefore, we used interpretive phenomenological analysis to identify seven unique characteristics ascribed to “Boomers”: closed-minded, argumentative, out-of-touch, offensive, critical, nostalgic, and/or conservative. Future work should monitor how derogatory age-based internet jargon influences ageism and intergenerational relations.

Keywords

baby boomers age stereotypes ageism microaggressions intergenerational communication

What this paper adds

• This paper offers the first brief scientific examination of “OK, Boomer” and illuminates the underlying hostile ageism of popular modern internet jargon used by emerging and young adults.

• The study uses a qualitative lens to better understand the meaning “OK Boomer,” as applying traditional ageism theories to its application was ill-suited.

Applications of study findings

• An understanding of younger adults’ perceptions of “Boomers” has implications for intergenerational contact in families, the workplace, online, in schools, in government, etc. and is worthy of deeper investigation to address and prevent conflict.

• Phenomenological research on ageism offers insight into recent developments that current theories may not be able to fully explain or address.

The demarcation of age groups is one of many social identifiers that have the capacity to unite or divide depending on an individual’s group identification; a common example is that of older adults and younger adults (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Both age groups have a fraught history when it comes to satisfactory intergenerational communication, in which stereotyped beliefs about the other age group can be as influential as the nature of the communication itself (Giles et al., 2022; Hummert, 2019). One study on how younger adults perceive the conversations they share with older adults found that they were dissatisfied with older adults’ disapproving, nonlistening, and overparenting behaviors; subsequent research confirmed and expanded this finding to include additional older adults’ behaviors when conversing with their younger counterparts, such as the use of endearments, personal questions, imperatives, and painful self-disclosures (Hummert, 2019; Williams & Giles, 1996). According to mainstream media, a popular retort younger adults have recently used to respond to these undesirable behaviors is “OK, Boomer,” which has subsequently led to the use of “Boomer” as a common descriptor of older adults who supposedly act in this manner (Google Trends, 2022). The goal of the present study is twofold: (1) What are younger adults trying to communicate about how they perceive older adults by using this phrase? (2) How might the use and meaning of “OK, Boomer” be related to what we know about age stereotypes?

Most colloquial sources concur that a younger adult typically says “OK, Boomer” to an older person to dismiss perceived out-of-touch or offensive statements (Lorenz, 2019; Zacharek, 2019). The eponymous “Boomers” in “OK, Boomer” are the 76 million individuals born between 1946–1964, a time of unprecedented fertility rates in the United States following the end of World War II; in 2011, the earliest Boomers turned 65, marking the beginning of a decades-long period where this generation enters what is often considered a threshold of older age (Herring, 2019; Mellor & Rehr, 2005). As of 2023, the Boomers span the ages of 58–77, whereas those who are more likely to say it are several decades younger.

Academic resources pertaining to the use of “OK, Boomer” are scarce, yet its use as a part of younger adults’ online vernacular has held steady after an initial peak in November of 2019 (Google Trends, 2022). An editorial prefacing the February 2020 issue of Academic Questions, titled “Don’t ‘OK Boomer’ Us,” defines the phrase as a way for younger generations to dismiss older generations’ infinite nagging (Iannone, 2020). A sociological analysis of the phrase suggested that it may be an expression of generational tensions, wherein Baby Boomers are frustrated with the idealism of younger adults while in turn are mocked for being “stubbornly conservative and out-of-touch” (Mueller & McCollum, 2022). Although the concept of “generational warfare” is far from novel, the added complexity of this latest iteration suggests that to younger adults, “Boomers” might symbolize the cause of systemic socioeconomic inequality; an aptly stated “OK, Boomer” could shut down intergenerational communication to the detriment of greater understanding for all (Iannone, 2020; Mueller & McCollum, 2022).

From a theoretical standpoint, the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), a two-dimensional framework of competence and warmth, serves as a basis of understanding how older adults are perceived by society in general (Fiske et al., 2002). The competence dimension reflects how individuals perceive older adults in terms of their functional role in society, including whether they are ambitious, industrious, dominant, and intelligent; in contrast, the warmth dimension refers to more interpersonal traits such as likability, sensitivity, and a nurturing demeanor. Older adults tend to fall in the “high warmth/low competence” cluster, implying that they are well-liked, but not well-respected. Perhaps the use of “OK, Boomer” is ultimately an expression of pity towards an older adult who is behind the times. Yet, this conceptualization of older adults as incompetent-but-warm also conflicts with some of what is assumed about the use of “OK, Boomer.” Although the perceived lack of understanding of social justice issues might reflect domain-specific incompetence, perceived warmth may ultimately be absent when using the phrase. Cuddy and Fiske (2002) identified that although this “incompetent-yet-warm” cluster might be reflective of older adults in general, the variability of social structures within this group means that some subgroups of older adults would fall into other clusters; for example, Boomers’ perceived political power and stability at the expense of later generations’ wealth and standard of living represents the opposite quadrant: low warmth, high competence (Andrews, 2021 ; Cuddy & Fiske, 2002).

A growing scientific literature regarding younger adults’ perceptions of older adults’ behaviors and values reveals how diverse age stereotypes are (Hummert et al., 1994; Levy, 2017; Schmidt & Boland, 1986). Schmidt and Boland (1986) asked younger adult participants to categorize lists of traits chronicling older adults; Hummert et al. (1994) confirmed the findings with participants of all ages and introduced a greater variety, particularly within the positive domain. The accumulated data across both studies revealed four negative age stereotypes and three positive ones. In the former category is “Shrew/Curmudgeon,” those who are complaining, selfish, and stubborn, “Severely Impaired,” described as slow-thinking, incompetent, and feeble, “Despondent,” characterized as depressed, lonely, and hopeless, and “Recluse,” or quiet, timid, and naïve (Hummert et al., 1994; Schmidt & Boland, 1986). In contrast, a second category includes positive stereotypes, generated by middle-aged and older adults, such as the “John Wayne Conservative,” who is characterized as patriotic, religious, and nostalgic, the “Perfect Grandparent,” who is kind, wise, and family-oriented, and the “Golden Ager,” who remains sociable, happy, and healthy. This varied list of seemingly contradictory schemas covers a wide range of possibilities for how younger adults might view their older counterparts.

Almost 30 years have passed since Hummert and colleagues (1994) categorized these age stereotypes, and given the current youthful zeitgeist regarding Boomers’ assumed “old-fashioned” beliefs and being “behind the times,” it is possible that even the positive “John Wayne Conservative” stereotype may no longer be considered positive, especially not by younger adults, who did not generate any of the positive stereotypes in Hummert’s study (Hummert et al., 1994). Similarly, Levy (2017) has summarized recent evidence that suggests age stereotypes are becoming increasingly more negative over time. Multiple computer-based analyses of media published over the past 200 years looked at the words that most often corresponded with “old,” “elderly,” and its synonyms, and found that negative age stereotypes have become pervasive over the decades (Mason et al., 2015; Michel et al., 2011; Ng et al., 2015). “OK, Boomer” may be an expression of frustration towards older generations’ assumed tendency to be conservative and nostalgic, and therefore its use rooted in younger adults’ espousal of negative age stereotypes.

Because the connection between intolerance and older age permeates the discussion of “OK, Boomer,” it is crucial to understand ageism, here defined as the negative, prejudicial attitudes and behaviors towards older adults that accumulate into systemic, age-based discrimination (Greenberg et al., 2002). Ageism literature is often divided into two subsets: benevolent ageism, which is related to the more “positive” age stereotypes (e.g., warmth), and hostile ageism, which is related to the more negative age stereotypes (e.g., incompetence) (Chonody, 2016). More specifically, benevolent ageism suggests that older adults are frail and incapable, and acts of overaccommodation (e.g., carrying their groceries without asking; elderspeak) are necessary (Chonody, 2016; Vale et al., 2020). This type of ageism is congruent with the Stereotype Content Model in that the perceived warmth and lack of competency can imbue those with benevolently ageist tendencies to take pity upon older adults, even if it is unwarranted (Chonody, 2016; Fiske et al., 2002). As discussed, “OK, Boomer” might be an example of either benevolent or hostile ageism. In the former, the potential good intentions behind its use suggests that the phrase is not overtly discriminatory; conversely, in the latter, the negative intentions could lead to discriminatory behaviors that can collectively contribute to the systemic problems older adults face (Chonody, 2016; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Greenberg et al., 2002). If hostility is how “OK, Boomer” is conceptualized by users, then it is laden with frustration towards the offensive, outdated, incompetent recipients.

Currently, there are no empirical investigations regarding the meaning, applicability, and use of “OK, Boomer” within the scientific literature. It is possible that the Stereotype Content Model and age stereotype categorizations operate as existing frameworks for analyzing the meaning behind how individuals use this quip (Fiske et al., 2002; Giles, 2016; Hummert et al., 1994). It is also possible that users of the quip have their own set of stereotypes in which they ascribe to older adults that is atheoretical. The primary aim of the present study is to qualitatively examine the underlying motivations for its use to determine whether it is an application of one of the aforementioned theories or a manifestation of a new set of stereotyped characteristics. Specifically, we are exploring the following three questions:

1. In which, if any, of the SCM quadrants does “OK, Boomer” fall?

2. Do “Boomer” descriptions overlap with Hummert et al.’s (1994) age stereotype categories?

3. If “OK, Boomer” does not relate to one of the posited theoretical orientations, does it have its own consistent set of themes?

Methods

Participants

Participants ranged in ages from 18–35 (M = 23; SD = 5.26) and were recruited via social media and SONA systems, an online research participation software. The SONA systems sample consisted predominantly of a college sample; therefore, only younger adults (<35) were included from the social media sample to be consistent. All participants were asked to provide age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and generation (e.g., Gen Z, Millennial, etc.). The sample included approximately equal numbers of men (46.8%) and women (50.6%) and was predominantly white (81.0%). See Table 1 for demographics.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics for SONA and Social Media Participants.

	SONA	Social media	Total
Variable	n = 197(62.3%)	n = 119(37.7%)	n = 316(100%)
Sex
Men	121 (61.4%)	27 (22.7%)	148 (46.8%)
Women	71 (36.0%)	89 (74.8%)	160 (50.6%)
Gender nonbinary	1 (0.5%)	3 (2.5%)	4 (1.3%)
Transgender men	2 (1.0%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.6%)
Transgender women	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.3%)
Gender	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.3%)
Racial/ethnic identity
African American/Black	21 (36%)	1 (0.8%)	22 (7.0%)
Asian American/Pacific Islander	10 (2%)	4 (3.4%)	14 (4.4%)
European American/White	149 (56%)	107 (89.9%)	256 (81.0%)
Hispanic/Latinx	6 (56%)	3 (2.5%)	9 (2.8%)
Middle eastern/North African	4 (56%)	0 (0%)	4 (1.3%)
Multiracial/Biracial	7 (56%)	4 (3.4%)	11 (3.5%)
Sexual orientation
Asexual	2 (1.0%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.6%)
Bisexual	13 (6.6%)	12 (0.1%)	25 (7.9%)
Demisexual	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.3%)
Heterosexual	172 (87.3%)	97 (81.5%)	269 (85.1%)
Homosexual	4 (2.0%)	5 (4.2%)	9 (2.8%)
Prefer no label	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.8%)	2 (0.6%)
Pansexual	3 (1.5%)	0 (0%)	3 (0.9%)
Queer	2 (1.0%)	2 (1.7%)	4 (1.3%)
Age	19.80 (2.39)*	28.39 (4.24)*	23.03 (5.26)*

Note. For the age variable, the mean and standard deviation [i.e., M (SD)] was reported for each condition rather than the subsample size and percentage [i.e., n(%)].

Materials

Use of “OK, Boomer” Single Items

Given the use of the term online and offline, the goal in developing these items was to capture its use and acceptability in several contexts by listing statements and asking participants to rate their agreement with them on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from “1 - Strongly Disagree” to “6 - Strongly Agree” (Gardner et al., 1998; Loo, 2002) The items consisted of “I am comfortable using the phrase ‘OK, Boomer’ in front of anyone,” “I like or share ‘OK, Boomer’ memes/jokes/pictures online,” and “How frequently do you use the phrase ‘OK, Boomer?’” the latter of which contained response items of “Never,” “Rarely,” “Sometimes,” “Often,” and “Always.”

Open-Ended Questions

The current study used two open-ended questions to assess the perceived meaning and usage of “OK Boomer.” Responses to both questions, “In a few sentences or less, please describe what the phrase ‘OK, Boomer’ means,” and “Please describe a scenario in which someone would use the phrase, ‘OK, Boomer’,” were first coded based on both the perceived warmth and competency of the older adult target. Afterwards, they were coded according to which, if any, age stereotype categories were applicable to the participants’ description of the “Boomer.” More than one age stereotype code could be applied to the same response. See Tables 2 and 3 for more details about these coding schemes.

Table 2.

Coding Scheme for Warmth of “Boomer”.

Code #	Code theme	Code description	Example responses
1	Warmth	The “Boomer” in the scenario is described as being warm (friendly, kind, loving, helpful, etc.)	“You say this to an old person who is being nice and offering you advice.”^a
2	Lack of Warmth	The “Boomer” in the scenario is described as lacking warmth (unfriendly, unkind, unhelpful, cruel, etc.)	“When an old person acts in a disrespectful way, or in a way stereotypical to how old people are expected to act. The golden zone of a perfectly delivered ‘OK Boomer’ is when the targeted Boomer has met both requirements. A good example would be my roommate’s parents: When his trump-supporter father spouts off some uneducated gibberish, my roommate can deliver an ‘OK Boomer’ and make his father very angry”
3	Ambiguous/Irrelevant	The “Boomer” in the scenario is either a) not alluded to be an older adult or b) no descriptions are present pertaining to warmth. “Don’t know” and other ambiguous responses would also fall into this category	“A dismissive term used to invalidate outdated (and likely more conservative) worldviews and values of the baby boomer generation. A younger person’s response to an older person who suggests that gay couples shouldn’t adopt children”

^aThis example response was not chosen from the data due to scarcity, but was written by the researchers to demonstrate a possible example to the coders.

Table 3.

Coding Scheme for Competence of “Boomer”.

Code #	Code theme	Code description	Example responses
1	Competence	The “Boomer” in the scenario is depicted as competent (intelligent, powerful, privileged, useful, wealthy, etc.)	“Talking about the baby boomer generation of spending money or the stock market. Talking about the stock market, real estate market”
2	Incompetence	The “Boomer” in the scenario is depicted as incompetent (unintelligent, useless, powerless, ignorant, cognitively impaired, frail, etc.)	“It’s a phrase used to irritate or call out boomers for lack of knowledge or closemindedness. When older people talk about something that they are totally wrong about or have closeminded thoughts.”
3	Ambiguous/Irrelevant	The “Boomer” in the scenario is either a) not alluded to be an older adult or b) no descriptions are present pertaining to competence. “Don’t know” and other ambiguous responses would also fall into this category	“When you shrug off something an older person says. When a boomer expresses their feelings like they say “back in my day…” and you shrug it off”

Procedure

Upon viewing the advertisement of the study, participants were encouraged to click a link that would direct them to the online survey on Qualtrics. After reading the informed consent and agreeing to participate, respondents answered the survey questions by clicking the item response button that best suited them. At completion, participants recruited via SONA systems received a course credit and social media recruits could click another link to enter a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card.

Study 1

We are presenting our results as two studies even though they are the same participants and same set of data, but they were analyzed differently with the first using content analysis to assess whether the usage of “OK Boomer” fits an already existing theoretical model of ageism.

Results

Descriptive Data

On the 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree,” the mean for “I am comfortable using the phrase in front of anyone” was nearly at the midpoint (M = 3.47), while the mean for liking and sharing “OK, Boomer”-related media online (M = 2.91) was closest to “Slightly Disagree.” On the 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Never” to “Always,” there were no responses for “Always;” however, the mean (M = 1.69) fell between “Never” and “Rarely.”

Question 1

We hypothesized that when applying the dimensions of the SCM, the “Boomer” in “OK, Boomer” will be perceived as warm and incompetent, cold and competent, or cold and incompetent. We did not expect to find evidence of the warm and competent quadrant.

Data coding procedure

We implemented a content analysis approach to code and quantify the latent content in situations where individuals use “OK, Boomer” and the manifest content about who says “OK, Boomer” to whom (Drisko & Maschi, 2016). Two undergraduate research assistants coded the SCM data. The phases of coder training included orientation to the coding schemes and overall task, a supervised group coding of sample responses, and individual coding of practice responses where coders assessed 10 responses individually and then subsequently discussed the results in a meeting with the supervisor. Preliminary reliability analyses were conducted on this small section of data to ensure that the coders could proceed with the task, and the pair were in perfect agreement, κ = 1.0. Coders were given 2 weeks to individually complete their respective coding of the data. Coders were encouraged to double-check their work prior to submitting it to their supervisor, and once each pair had submitted their codes, the supervisor combined both sets of codes into one data file. The supervisor contacted the paired coders to correct typos and ask for clarification regarding any discrepancies to obtain a final set of codes that would be used for the duration of the data analyses.

Interrater reliability analyses

When coding for warmth in response to the questions, “In a few sentences or less, please describe what the phrase ‘OK, Boomer’ means” and “Please describe a scenario in which someone would use the phrase, ‘OK, Boomer,” there were only two discrepancies resulting in strong agreement, κ = .980, 95% CI [.994, .966], p < .001. For assessing competence in response to these open-ended questions, coders disagreed 11 times, still leading to strong agreement, κ = .922, 95% CI [.899, .945], p < .001.

Data analyses

In replies to these same open-ended questions, 63 participants used language to indicate that the target lacked warmth (19.9%), whereas 250 participants’ responses were coded as ambiguous or irrelevant (79.1%). Zero participants (0%) used language to suggest the target of “OK, Boomer” is warm. As for competence, responses included a lone individual believing the target to be competent (0.3%), whereas 106 participants believed the target to be incompetent (33.5%). Remaining responses were coded as ambiguous or irrelevant (n = 206, 65.2%).

There were no content analysis data to support the existence of all four quadrants of the SCM; the only quadrant with support was low warmth/low competence. The number of individuals whose responses to defining “OK, Boomer” were coded as both low in warmth and low in competence was substantially less (N = 32) than those whose responses did not meet criteria for any SCM quadrant (N = 284), suggesting that the Stereotype Content Model is not a strong theory for understanding “OK, Boomer.”

Question 2

We expected that we would see some applicability of Hummert’s four negative age stereotypes: “Shrew/Curmudgeon,” “Severely Impaired,” “Despondent,” and “Recluse,” in addition to the qualities of the “John Wayne Conservative” in a more negative light.

Data coding procedure

One graduate student researcher and one undergraduate research assistant coded the “Age Stereotype Categories” data. To simplify coding procedures, the responses to both questions were treated as one response rather than two. A discrepancy was defined as a lack of any overlap between the two coded responses; in situations where there was overlap, but not perfect agreement, the more conservative of the two coded responses was chosen as the final code. For example, if the first rater coded a response as “Shrew/Curmudgeon” only, but the second rater coded a response as “Shrew/Curmudgeon” and “Severely Impaired,” the final code was simply “Shrew/Curmudgeon.” Coder training was otherwise identical to the training given to the coders for the SCM data, and preliminary reliability analyses conducted on this pairing’s practice data found that they were also in perfect agreement, κ = 1.0.

Interrater reliability analyses

When coding the data in accordance to which, if any, of the age stereotype categories were present in the participants’ descriptions of the “Boomer,” there were a total of 21 discrepancies, which resulted in strong agreement, κ = .819, 95% CI [.781, .857], p < .001.

Data analyses

Of the age stereotype category data, 28 responses (8.9%) were coded solely as “Severely Impaired,” 95 responses (30.0%) were coded as “Shrew/Curmudgeon,” and 34 responses (10.8%) were coded as “John Wayne Conservative,” which constituted about half (49.7%) of all data. The other half of the data (50.3%) were either given more than one code or were irrelevant; 18 responses (5.7%) were assigned the dual code of “Shrew/Curmudgeon + Severely Impaired,” 12 responses (3.8%) were coded as “Severely Impaired + John Wayne Conservative,” 55 responses (17.4%) contained elements of both “Shrew/Curmudgeon” and “John Wayne Conservative,” and finally 11 responses (3.5%) were coded as all three. Sixty-three responses (19.9%) contained data but did not explicitly describe the recipient of “OK, Boomer.”

Neither rater found evidence for “Recluse,” “Despondent,” “Golden Ager,” or “Perfect Grandparent” among the responses. The age stereotype category with the strongest support was “Shrew/Curmudgeon” with approximately one-third (30.06%) of all responses solely describing the “Boomer” similarly to Hummert et al.’s (1994) description of that stereotype, followed by “John Wayne Conservative” (10.76%) and “Severely Impaired” (8.86%). Numerous responses were also coded as belonging to more than one category, with 17.41% of responses coded as “Shrew/Curmudgeon + John Wayne Conservative,” 5.70% coded as “Shrew/Curmudgeon + Severely Impaired,” and 3.79% coded as “John Wayne Conservative + Severely Impaired.” Responses that were coded as having elements from all three categories constituted only 3.48%, with the remaining fifth of them (19.94%) unable to be coded because there was no description of the “Boomer” in response.

Study 2

The Stereotype Content Model posits that in general, older adults are viewed as high in warmth but low in competence; however, we found that there is no evidence to support that younger adults perceive “Boomers” as warm (Fiske et al., 2002). Indeed, there was little evidence that “Boomers” clearly map onto any quadrant of the SCM at all, with a miniscule amount of data supporting a classification of “low competence/low warmth.” This suggests the SCM is not a strong theoretical framework with which to understand how younger adults perceive recipients of “OK, Boomer.”

Similarly, although we found varied evidence for several of Hummert et al.’s (1994) age stereotype categories to be applicable, there was not a clear overlap between the “Boomer” and any one of the stereotypes. Rather, “Boomers” seemed to share elements of the “Shrew/Curmudgeon,” the “Severely Impaired,” and the “John Wayne Conservative” despite none of them being a perfect fit. The goals of Study 1 were to apply foundational theoretical frameworks about perceptions of older adults to the “Boomer” in “OK, Boomer” to see if the data support the existing theories; this attempt at a confirmatory approach resulted in a lack of confirmation that “Boomers,” as perceived by younger adults, are viewed as “warm-yet-incompetent” or akin to any of the aforementioned stereotypes. Rather, the “Boomer” remained somewhat of an enigma, which led to our final research question to be examined using a phenomenological approach.

Analytical Approach

We used an exploratory, open-ended approach to coding the data via Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), wherein the researcher uses the participants’ data at face value and is permitted to interpret the participants’ words to find common themes among synonymous, if not identical, words and phrases (Finlay, 2009). The primary goal of IPA is to understand people’s lived experiences with a particular phenomenon by identifying themes, which in this instance is their social context of using, interpreting, and defining “OK, Boomer” and the titular “Boomers;” this was chosen over other qualitative methodologies such as grounded theory because to develop a sophisticated theory via an iterative, systematic process (above and beyond mere themes or descriptions) would benefit from a more substantial literature base to draw upon than what was currently known about this phenomenon at the time (Urcia, 2021). Two coders, one undergraduate research assistant and one graduate-level researcher, were asked to read the responses to the two open-ended questions, “In a few sentences or less, please describe what the phrase ‘OK, Boomer’ means,” and “Please describe a scenario in which someone would use the phrase, ‘OK, Boomer,” to come up with descriptors of “Boomers” that were identical or synonymous to how the participant portrayed them. Responses were allowed to be coded with as many descriptors as the coder felt were applicable. After each coder finished, they compared their identified descriptors to one another’s and settled on a final set of themes, which were subsequently reviewed and confirmed by a panel of ageism experts. The graduate researcher then conducted a content analysis to measure how often each theme was applicable within the data.

Results

The seven identified descriptors of “Boomers” are as follows: closed-minded, argumentative, out-of-touch, offensive, critical, nostalgic, and conservative. All details and chosen excerpts are in Table 4.

Table 4.

Identified Themes and Quotations from the Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of “OK, Boomer”.

Theme	Related Words	Excerpts	N = 316 (100%)
Closed-Minded	Inflexible, stubborn, obstinate, dogmatic	1. “[You say ‘OK, Boomer’] if someone has a very closed-minded perspective and doesn’t show willingness to adapt to current times.”	50 (15.8%)
Closed-Minded	Inflexible, stubborn, obstinate, dogmatic	2. “OK Boomer is a title for the elderly that basically mocks their age and generation. It’s a type of slang used to call out their close-minded opinions.”	50 (15.8%)
Argumentative	Temperamental, belligerent, opinionated, complaining, irritable, ornery	1. “Basically, this is the phrase you use when you know it’s not worth the argument. They aren’t going to listen to reasons or facts. When your aunt at the family dinner is busy calling you a snowflake for calling her out on her racist comment.”	72 (22.8%)
Argumentative		2. “[You say ‘OK, Boomer’] if an adult is complaining about younger generations and their impact on the economy or government and you didn’t want to engage in the argument.”	72 (22.8%)
Out-of-Touch	Old-fashioned, incompetent, useless, unhelpful, antiquated, archaic, obsolete	1. “Someone older and extremely out of touch with the way the world is now. Very entitled and expect preferential treatment. Like when a Boomer tells you it is not hard to afford your own place and all the bills on little income. It’s not the 50s, houses don’t cost $10,000.”	152 (48.1%)
Out-of-Touch		2. “[A ‘Boomer’ is] someone who doesn’t understand modern technology. Doesn’t understand the current generation. Like when someone doesn’t know how to work a smartphone or some sort of new technology and can’t figure it out.”	152 (48.1%)
Offensive	Prejudiced, annoying, rude, bigoted, biased, discriminatory, intolerant	1. “Younger person: ‘Hey please don’t use the r-slur and what you are saying is homophobic/racist/sexist’ Boomer: ‘Back in my day we didn’t have all the stupid rules for snowflakes like you. Everyone I knew was homophobic/racist/sexist, so I won’t change’ younger person: ‘Ok Boomer.’”	47 (14.9%)
Offensive		2. “[‘OK, Boomer’ is] what gen z uses against older people when they’re being offensive or just plain annoying. When an older woman is saying that in her day women don’t dress like they do now”	47 (14.9%)
Critical	Judgmental, demanding, disapproving, reproachful	1. “If someone old would try to look down on something the new generation is doing some of them in return would say ok boomer.”	101 (32.0%)
Critical	Judgmental, demanding, disapproving, reproachful	2. “This phrase is used to make fun of and agitate older people criticizing younger people for using technology that is more advanced but ‘worse’ compared to what they used when they were young. I Would use this if someone started a story with ‘Back in my day’ and then rambled about how everything was better in the past.”	101 (32.0%)
Nostalgic	Wistful, full of longing, missing the good ol’ days, yearning for yesteryear	1. “If someone who was older was talking about how things used to be different or if the phrase ‘Back in my day’ is ever said then there is a good chance of getting hit with an ‘OK Boomer.’”	59 (18.7%)
Nostalgic		2. “[A Boomer is] stubborn, old, slow, someone who won’t change the way they do things because they are stuck in the way things used to be done. When my dad starts talking about how he gets annoyed with something like a virtual doctors visit because they are trying to make things too high tech nowadays, I would respond ‘Ok boomer.’”	59 (18.7%)
Conservative	Traditional, republican, right-of-center, right-wing	1. “[Saying ‘OK, Boomer’ is] a way of dismissing the complaints or comments of someone older. Often used by someone who complains about someone who holds conservative or ‘outdated’ views. A response to someone going on a long tirade about people who identify by a different gender or sex than what they were given at birth.”	30 (9.5%)
Conservative	Traditional, republican, right-of-center, right-wing	2. “[‘OK, Boomer’ is used] when an old person acts in a disrespectful way, or in a way stereotypical to how old people are expected to act. The golden zone of a perfectly delivered ‘OK Boomer’ is when the targeted Boomer has met both requirements. A good example would be my roommate’s parents: When his trump-supporter father spouts off some uneducated gibberish, my roommate can deliver an ‘OK Boomer’ and make his father very angry.”	30 (9.5%)
“Old”	Older, elderly, senior citizen, etc.	1. “I think people say this when referring to someone with ‘older’ ways or more ‘traditional’ ways of thinking. Possibly in reference to not being technologically savvy or having a closed mind when it comes to alternative sexual practices/relationships (e.g., gay, bisexual, polyamorous, etc.). I Picture a teenager or young adult saying this to their parent or grandparent in reference to one of the above.”	201 (63.6%)
“Old”	Older, elderly, senior citizen, etc.	2. “[You say ‘OK, Boomer’] when referring to old people. You would say it if the person acts or says something in an older way. If a grandma said something like ‘Back in my day…’ their grandchild might say ‘OK Boomer.’”	201 (63.6%)

Descriptor 1: Closed-Minded

“Closed-minded” was often used verbatim by participants to describe “Boomers;” coders deemed that similar terms included “inflexible,” “stubborn,” “obstinate,” and “dogmatic.” Fifty of the 316 (15.8%) of all responses were coded as portraying the “Boomer” as closed-minded.

Descriptor 2: Argumentative

Several responses to “Please describe a scenario in which someone would use the phrase, ‘OK Boomer’” depicted the “Boomer” as instigating an argument; related words in this theme included “temperamental,” “belligerent,” “opinionated,” “complaining,” “irritable,” and “ornery.” Seventy-two of 316 respondents (22.8%) identified the “Boomer” as argumentative.

Descriptor 3: Out-of-Touch

This descriptor included synonyms that included “old-fashioned,” “incompetent,” “useless,” “unhelpful,” “antiquated,” “archaic,” and “obsolete,” with the “incompetence” piece functioning as the key similarity. According to the data, “Boomers’” incompetence was specific to the realm of not being up to date with modern ideals and practices (especially technology) rather than an overall loss of mental functioning. This theme was particularly prevalent across the responses, with 152 of the 316 (48.1%) alluding to the “Boomer” being out-of-touch in some way.

Descriptor 4: Offensive

The “Offensive” descriptor is meant to encompass any number of behaviors that can also be described as “prejudiced,” “annoying,” “rude,” “bigoted,” “biased,” “discriminatory,” and “intolerant.” Prejudice was an especially common thread throughout the 47 (14.9%) responses coded as “Offensive,” with many describing “Boomers” as guilty of any number of “-isms.”

Descriptor 5: Critical

Synonymous with “judgmental,” “demanding,” “disapproving,” and “reproachful,” the theme of “Boomers” as “Critical” was a strong theme. Responses here seemed to indicate that “Boomers” are critical toward younger generations and modernity in general, with 101 of 316 (32.0%) highlighting such examples.

Descriptor 6: Nostalgic

The “Nostalgic” descriptor included synonyms such as being “wistful,” “full of longing,” “missing the good ol’ days,” and “yearning for yesteryear.” Although this is not inherently negative, the 59 (18.7%) responses tended toward thinking “Boomers” live too much in the past and are resistant of the present.

Descriptor 7: Conservative

“Boomers” described as “Conservative” were associated with being “traditional,” “Republican,” “right-of-center,” and “right-wing.” Responses were only coded as such if they explicitly alluded to the “Boomer’s” political orientation and thus no inferences were made. Thirty of the 316 responses (9.5%) stated that “Boomers” are politically and ideologically “Conservative.”

“Boomers” as “Old”

Although this is separate from the seven identified descriptors of “Boomers,” a related theme that emerged is that the aforementioned characteristics and behaviors were deemed synonymous with being “old.” Sometimes respondents did not elaborate much beyond saying that “OK, Boomer” is best delivered to an “old/older person” or when someone “acts old,” but other times there were accompanying descriptions. The word “old” or some iteration thereof (older, elderly, etc. but not “Baby Boomer” or anything related) was mentioned in 201 responses (63.6%), which suggests most respondents perceive older people identically to how they perceive “Boomers;” if these descriptors of “Boomers” are any indication, these are not warm, positive associations. Additionally, in 70 responses (22.15%), participants indicated that a recipient of “OK, Boomer” need not be older, but merely “act old”; for an example, see the first quotation in the “Old” theme Table 4 where the participant mentioned that it is directed toward “someone with ‘older’ ways.” In the following excerpts from Table 4, “old” is described as essentially synonymous with several of our “Boomer” characteristics: (1) “traditional” (i.e., “Conservative”), (2) “not being technologically savvy” (i.e., “Out-of-Touch”), (3) “having a closed mind when it comes to alternative sexual practices/relationships” (i.e., “Closed-Minded”), (4) “openly prejudiced against sexual minorities” (i.e., “Offensive”), and (5) “Back in my day…” (i.e., “Nostalgic”).

Potential Underlying Ageism

To integrate these findings with the ageism literature, we find that the seven descriptors are predominantly hostile and/or negative. Based on the data, “Closed-minded,” “Argumentative,” “Offensive,” “Critical,” and “Conservative” appear to have a hostile undertone, which the chosen excerpts highlight. “Out-of-Touch” and “Nostalgic” can apply in either a hostile or benevolent manner. For example, Excerpt 1 vs. Excerpt 2 in Table 4 for the “Out-of-Touch” descriptor each capture a different attitude; in Excerpt 1, the Boomer is described as “entitled” and as someone who, “expects preferential treatment,” which suggests hostility on their part. In contrast, Excerpt 2 emphasizes that the “Boomer” is out-of-touch due to their difficulty with “modern technology,” which aligns with benevolently ageist principles due to pitying them for their incompetence. Similarly, the “Nostalgic” excerpts each capture a different sentiment; a lot of responses were relatively benign like the first excerpt, in which the phrase “Back in my day…” was followed with a placating “OK, Boomer” to lightly brush off whatever the “Boomer” was talking about. In contrast, other responses were much like Excerpt 2, where “out-of-touch” was paired with overtly negative characteristics such as “stubborn” and “stuck.” None of the descriptors were conveyed solely in a positive or benevolent light. Please see Table 4 for a concise summary of the results.

General Discussion

The primary goal of the first study was to understand how younger adults utilize “OK, Boomer” according to the SCM. We found little support for our first hypothesis, in that about 10% of “Boomers” fit within the low warmth/low competence quadrant with no conceptualization fitting into any other quadrant. We found partial support for our second hypothesis, in that the “Shrew/Curmudgeon,” “Severely Impaired,” and “John Wayne Conservative” stereotypes individually overlapped with how “Boomers” are perceived in a substantial number of participants, but no singular stereotype was an ideal fit. Due to the lack of support based on existing frameworks, in the second study we used an interpretive phenomenological qualitative analysis resulting in seven characteristics commonly ascribed to “Boomers”: closed-minded, argumentative, out-of-touch, critical, offensive, nostalgic, and conservative. A notable theme, although not explicitly a characteristic of “Boomers,” was that these characteristics were not just how participants described “Boomers,” but rather older people in general and those who “act old.”

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Age stereotypes have become increasingly more negative over the years, and this pervasive pattern is consistent with our qualitative analyses of the data (Levy, 2017). The results of our phenomenological analysis suggest that the “Boomer” is a new age stereotype schema, in which the people of this generation are perceived by their younger adult counterparts as being closed-minded, argumentative, out-of-touch, critical, offensive, nostalgic, and/or conservative. The use of this phrase suggests these negatively coded descriptors are also synonymous with “acting old,” and as such, to be called a “Boomer” means one possesses certain undesirable ideologies and behaviors, regardless of age. Practically speaking, the phrase “OK, Boomer” and its derivative of “Boomer” maintain a presence in the current climate of intergenerational tensions, spurred by a pandemic that younger adults have gleefully referred to as the “Boomer Remover” on Twitter, named so as a “karmic retribution” of sorts for older adults’ negligence of younger generations’ survival on an ever-warming planet (Elliot, 2022).

Limitations and Future Directions

Our young adult sample neither includes adequate information about other age groups across the lifespan, nor does it equally represent a young adult age group, given that there is an overabundance of college-aged representation. Additionally, the college-aged sample is predominantly male, whereas the social media sample, which skewed a bit older, is predominantly female. It is unclear whether how young, white, straight people view “Boomers” is generalizable to young adults of color or sexual minorities, who may have different relationships with generations who fought for civil rights before them and may therefore be held in higher esteem. Next steps should include better representation of marginalized populations to explore any nuances of the current findings. Regardless, we believe in the integrity of our results as a first step towards understanding the implications of “OK, Boomer” (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007; Schwarz & Stensaker, 2014).

One possible future research direction would be to ask if “OK, Boomer” is a microaggression (Sue, 2010). The parameters of the current study could not address this point given the lack of age-related microaggression criteria. It has been suggested that the microaggression literature is currently scientifically underdeveloped, so future studies should examine the existence of age-related microaggressions, “OK, Boomer” as a specific example, and implications for older adults’ health and well-being (Lilienfeld, 2017; Sue, 2010; Williams, 2020).

More research, particularly of a quantitative variety, is needed to better understand the potential underlying hostile (or benevolent) ageism of this phrase, since perhaps the phrase has a different, less hostile connotation when aimed at individuals the speaker personally knows, such as a parent or a grandparent, but is more hostile when used toward an anonymous online figure.

In conclusion, our analysis of “OK, Boomer” is a first step toward understanding the use of this phrase in the context of intergenerational communication, but larger questions remain regarding the possible cultural shifts in associated age stereotypes, the underlying hostile ageism, and the existence of age-related microaggressions. It is our recommendation that future work in this area continue to monitor how derogatory age-based internet jargon develops and influences both ageism in popular culture and intergenerational relations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the research assistants of the TRI-Lab at the University of Akron and Rebekah M. Swango in particular for their contributions to this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the University of Akron Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects. The ethics approval/IRB reference number is: 20220206

ORCID iDs

Katelyn T. Frey

Toni L. Bisconti

References

Andrews

(2021). Boomers: The men and women who promised freedom and delivered disaster. Sentinel.

Bergkvist

Rossiter

J. R.

(2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 44(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2\.175

Chonody

J. M.

(2016). Positive and negative ageism: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism. Affilia, 31(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109915595839

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

(2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 3–26). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Drisko

J. W.

Maschi

(2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.

Elliott

(2022). The “Boomer remover”: Intergenerational discounting, the coronavirus and climate change. Sociological Review, 70(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261211049023

Finlay

(2009). Exploring lived experience: Principles and practice of phenomenological research. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(9), 474–481. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.9.43765

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Gardner

D. G.

Cummings

L. L.

Dunham

R. B.

Pierce

J. L.

(1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898–915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006003

10.

Giles

(2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537

11.

Giles

Gasiorek

Davis

Giles

(2022). The ingredients of intergenerational communication. In Communication for successful aging: Empowering individuals across the lifespan (pp. 56–71). Routledge.

12.

Glick

Fiske

(2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139022736.005

13.

Google Trends . (2022). Search term: “OK boomer”Google Trends. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today_5-y&geo=US&q=ok_boomer

14.

Greenberg

Schimel

Martens

(2002). Ageism: Denying the face of the future. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 27–48). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

15.

Herring

(2019). Connecting generations: Bridging the boomer, gen x, and millennial divide. Rowman and Littlefield.

16.

Hummert

M. L.

(2019). Intergenerational communication. In Language, communication and intergroup relations: A celebration of the scholarship of howard Giles (pp. 130–161). Routledge.

17.

Hummert

M. L.

Garstka

T. A.

Shaner

J. L.

Strahm

(1994). Stereotypes of the elderly held by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 49(5), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/49.5

18.

Iannone

(2020). Don’t “OK, boomer” us. Academic Questions, 33(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-020-09867

19.

Levy

B. R.

(2017). Age-stereotype paradox: Opportunity for social change. The Gerontologist, 57(suppl_2), S118–S126. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx059

20.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2017). Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 138–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391

21.

Loo

(2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1/2), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415933

22.

Lorenz

(2019, October 29). ‘OK Boomer’ marks the end of friendly generational relations. The New York times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/style/ok-boomer.html

23.

Mason

S. E.

Kuntz

C. V.

McGill

C. M.

(2015). Oldsters and ngrams: Age stereotypes across time. Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues in Psychology, 116(1), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.2466/17.10.PR0.116k17w6

24.

Mellor

M. J.

Rehr

(2005). Baby boomers: Can my eighties be like my fifties? [electronic resource (1st ed.). Springer.

25.

Michel

J. B.

Shen

Y. K.

Aiden

A. P.

Veres

Gray

M. K.

Pickett

J. P.

Hoiberg

Clancy

Norvig

Orwant

Pinker

Nowak

M. A.

Aiden

E. L.

(2011). The Google books team, and Aiden, E. LQuantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 14(6014), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644

26.

Mueller

J. C.

McCollum

(2022). A sociological analysis of “OK boomer”. Critical Sociology. 48(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205211025724

27.

Allore

H. G.

Trentalange

Monin

J. K.

Levy

B. R.

(2015). Increasing negativity of age stereotypes across 200 Years: Evidence from a database of 400 million words. Plos One, 10(2), Article e0117086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117086

28.

Schmidt

D. F.

Boland

S. M.

(1986). The structure of impressions of older adults: Evidence for multiple stereotypes. Psychology and Aging, 1(3), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.1.3.255

29.

Schwarz

Stensaker

(2014). Time to take off the theoretical straightjacket and (re)introduce phenomenon-driven research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(4), 478–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314549919

30.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Chapter 1: Microaggressions, marginality, and oppression. In Sue

D. W.

(Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestations, dynamic, and impact [electronic resource] (pp. 3–22). John Wiley and Sons.

31.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

(eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

32.

Urcia

I. A.

(2021). Comparisons of adaptations in grounded theory and phenomenology: Selecting the specific qualitative research methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 160940692110454. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211045474

33.

Vale

M. T.

Bisconti

T. L.

Sublett

J. L.

(2020). Benevolent ageism: Attitudes of overaccommodative behavior toward older women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 160(5), 548–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1695567

34.

Williams

Giles

(1996). Intergenerational conversations: Young adults’ retrospective accounts. Human Communication Research, 23(2), 220–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00393.x

35.

Williams

M. T.

(2020). Microaggressions: Clarification, evidence, and impact. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619827499

36.

Zacharek

(2019). ‘OK boomer’ captures the tension between young and old. Must it be so dismissive? Time https://time.com/5735423/ok-boomer-meme-fair/