Chapter 1

Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda

Elodie Gentina

Abstract
Generation Z, including individuals born from the mid-1990s to the late
2000s, is said to be different from other generations before. Generation Z
is said to be the generation of digital natives, with multiple identities; a
worried and creative generation who value collaborative consumption; and
a generation looking forward. The authors present here tentative observa-
tions of Generation Z in Asia using theoretical approaches and scientific
backgrounds: the authors show how socialisation theory (parents and peer
group) and technology (relationship with smartphones) offer meaningful
perspectives to understand Generation Z behaviours in Asia. Finally, the
authors ask some key questions about dealing with Generation Z in Asia
in the field of smartphone use, consumer behaviour (shopping orienta-
tion), collaborative consumption (sharing), and work context.

Keywords: Generation Z; digital natives, Asia; consumers; workers;

research

Introduction
For several years, Millennials, digital natives, and other names for ‘Generation Y’
have been the focus of academic research (e.g. Business Administration, Behav-
ioural Management, Sociology, Psychology, etc.) and even more of practitioners
in companies, politicians, teachers, parents, and of course of the media. However,
over the past few years, a new generation slowly has moved into focus: Genera-
tion Z, including individuals born from the mid-1990s to the late 2000s. This gen-
eration of digital natives has grown up in a digital, technology-saturated world.
We cannot understand Generation Z without understanding the context in which
they have grown up. Then we can examine their characteristics, their behaviour as
consumers, and their behaviour at work.

The New Generation Z in Asia: Dynamics, Differences, Digitalisation

The Changing Context of Managing People, 3–19
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-80043-220-820201002
4    Elodie Gentina

Worldwide, young people from ‘Generation Z’ are characterised by similar

consumption practices with respect to clothing, music, and media use, pointing
to the evidence of a ‘global youth culture’. This presumed uniformity, however,
might be inaccurate. Recent research suggests that ‘Generation Z’ adapts global
consumption practices and meanings to fit local contexts (Kjeldgaard & Askeg-
aard, 2006). Consistent with this finding is a handful of cross-cultural studies that
reports significant differences in consumer behaviour between highly individual-
istic cultures (e.g. Western cultures) and strongly collectivist cultures (e.g. Eastern
cultures). This leaves open questions: How does the Generation Z look in other
regions of the world? Are there specific patterns? Unique questions? Global ques-
tions? Much remains unknown, in particular about the behaviours of Generation
Z especially in Asia.

The Concept of Generation

The concept of generation is a cross-disciplinary concept with different mean-
ings, linked to age, genealogy or the filiation, and historical period. We focus here
on the definition of generation proposed by Attias-Donfut (1988) in Sociology
which relies on four different meanings:

1. generation in the demographic sense, gathering all people belonging to the

same age range;
2. generation in the genealogical and family sense, making the distinction between
the older generation (e.g. parents and grandparents) and younger generation
(children) with a normalised hierarchical relation of the domination of the
former over the latter;
3. generation in the historical sense, as the length of time required to
renew individuals in public life, estimated as the time needed for a child to
become independent and integrated in public life (estimated at 30 years on
average);
4. generation in the socio-cognitive or sociological sense, gathering a group
of individuals born in the same time period, during which they have shared
unique events created by their common age situation within history (refer-
ring to generational cohort). For instance, Baby Boomers had the Vietnam
War. Millennials had 9/11 and the financial crisis. For Generation Z, their life-­
altering world event might be the Coronavirus crisis, and the accompanying
slew of school closings, quarantines, and high unemployment rates.

There exist different generational cohorts ‘whose members are linked to each
other through shared life experiences during their formative years, including mac-
roeconomic conditions’ (Pekerti & Arli, 2017, p. 390):

- Baby Boomers born approximately between 1950 and 1964.

- Generation X born approximately between 1965 and 1979.
- Generation Y born approximately between 1984 and 1988.
- Generation Z or digital natives born after 1995.
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    5

Prior studies in consumer behaviour refer to generational cohorts to explain

similarities related to their consumption behaviours inside the same age cohort and
differences between different age cohorts (Pekerti & Denni, 2017). For instance,
consumers in younger Generation Y are more impulsive (Hsiao & Chang, 2007)
and are more permissive of questionable consumer behaviours (Freestone &
Mitchell, 2004). Other studies in the management have shown some differences
between age cohorts concerning their working relationships. For instance, mem-
bers of Generation X are more intrinsic in their work motivation than Genera-
tion Y. Generation Z is more realistic than Generations Y and Z with regard to
perceiving ethicality of work situation (Boyd, 2010).
Given that sharing life experiences related to consumption behaviour and
working relationships is concerned, we naturally favour generation in its socio-
cognitive or sociological sense. However, we do not focus on this exclusive
sociological dimension of generation here, we also take into consideration the
genealogical/family and historical perspectives present in socio-cognitive and his-
torical approaches of generation.

Characteristics of Generation Z
A Generation of Digital Natives
The new generation of digital natives, who were born around the end of the first
decade, can be considered as a new breed of digital citizens. They have unprec-
edented access to technology. Unlike Generation X or Y, who are ‘digital immi-
grants’, Generation Z gathers the first true digital natives who have abandoned
traditional computers for mobile devices. Members of Generation Z do not need
to familiarise themselves with technology by comparing it to something else. On
the contrary, they propose new ways of thinking about how technology can be
effectively used. Generation Z perceives the world through different eyes: what
is a novelty for digital immigrants is something ordinary, for digital natives as it
is an integral part of their lives. For instance, 55% of parents estimate that their
children under the age of 12 are more technologically knowledgeable than them-
selves (Dingli & Seychell, 2015).
A survey by Project Tomorrow (tomorrow.org) found that Generation Z is
digitally literate, connected, experiential, social, and demanding of instant grati-
fication. A 2017 Pew Research Center report showed that 92% of American teens
go online daily and 91% of them are connected to the Internet through mobile
devices. By age 20, these young adults will have spent around 20,000 hours online
exploring their place and identity in the world. Many adolescents consider smart-
phones as integral parts of their lives and can hardly imagine living without them
(Roberts, Yala, & Manolis, 2014). For example, in South Korea (the country
with the highest smartphone penetration rate worldwide), almost 75% of tweens
(aged between 10 and 15) spend more than 5 hours per day using a smartphone
(Roberts et al., 2014). Adolescents spend on average more than 3 hours per day
on their smartphone, suggesting that smartphone addiction among adolescents
is a prevalent problem among members of Generation Z (Gentina & Delécluse,
6    Elodie Gentina

2018). Smartphone addiction is ‘the excessive use of smartphones in a way that

is difficult to control’ (Gökçearslan, Mumcu, Haşlaman, & Çevik., 2016, p. 640).
More specifically, nomophobia, defined as a fear of having to go without mobile
devices (Roberts et al., 2014), is emerging as a common phenomenon among
Generation Z.
Generation Z loves their online audience but also value their anonymity. They
know how to manage their digital privacy because they have grown up with a
keen understanding of the line between public and private in online settings, and,
thus, preserve their privacy. This can explain why Generation Z has less interest in
Facebook, preferring social media. Generation Z can more easily keep their inter-
actions restricted to their intimate friends or present a carefully curated image.
Generation Z tries to keep communication private, and, thus, prefers private
social networks such as Snapchat.

A Generation with Multiple Identities

Members of Generation Z express themselves through their personal character-
istics, appearance, clothes, hobbies, and interests. At the same time, members of
Generation Z, who spend most of their time online, express themselves in the real
world while also extending and complementing their offline social life by using
the digital environment. Thus, they manage their identity online and offline.
The way of expressing oneself is the main difference between Generation Z
(digital natives) and Generation Y (digital immigrants). Digital natives are able
to change many aspects of their personal identities much quicker and easier than
it was before, thanks to online applications or online social networks (e.g. Face-
book, My Space, Snapchat). They create their identity online thanks to a new
profile in a social network, where they present themselves in a way that could
be strikingly different from the way they present or express themselves in real
space. Thus, members of Generation Z usually change aspects of their personal
and social identities almost constantly and experiment with multiple identities
online thanks to their profile pictures and avatars (as they change their clothes
or hairstyle).
Friendships are important in Generation Z’s lives. Adolescence is marked by
transformational intrapersonal changes in identity and increased need to belong
to a peer group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). If digital immigrants (Generation Y)
still prefer to make friends in person, Generation Z (digital natives) is open for
friendship with people from around the world, thanks to their constant access to
online social networks. Members of Generation Z flocked to social networks such
as Facebook and Twitter to continue their social interactions with people who are
already a part of their extended social network (Ellison, 2007). Facebook provides
opportunities for young people to make new friends (Madge, Meek, Wellens, &
Hooley, 2009). Moreover, Twitter attracts Generation Z who is interested in engag-
ing in short conversations with other teens to receive and share information with
others, a way to develop more social interactions (Kwon, Park, & Kim, 2014).
Another major shift between Generation Z and other generations (Generations
Y, X, and Baby Boomers) is related to the method of watching television. Among
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    7

American adults, 59% of them cite cable or satellite as their primary method of
watching television, according to a 2017 Pew Research study. On the contrary,
the majority of Generation Z use their smartphone as their primary medium to
watch videos. In a recent Business Insider survey (2018) conducted among 104
teens nationwide, only 2% of Generation Z said that cable was their most-used
choice for video content. Nearly a third said YouTube was their most-used source
for video content, and 62% said streaming including Netflix or Hulu. They watch
YouTube as a niche for hobby-driven content, such as beauty or cooking show.

A Worried Generation
A generation is ‘an identifiable group that shares birth years, age, location, and
significant life events at critical developmental stages’ (Smola & Sutton 2002:
364). Members of a generation share a history and common experiences, and
this collective consciousness creates their worldview. Each generation is shaped
by national and international events that take place during their formative years,
when their identity and world views are still in flux. Throughout the world, the
younger generation has grown up with the War on Terror, the spread of vio-
lent jihadism and terrorism. The Coronavirus pandemic might be a watershed
moment in the lives of Generation Z. According to survey of US teenagers
(ages 13–17) from Common Sense Media taken in March–April 2020, 63% are
worried about the effect that COVID-19 has on their family’s ability to make a
living or earn money and 42% feel ‘more lonely than usual’. Members of Genera-
tion Z have grown up in a world that hasn’t always made them feel secure. Thus,
they are pessimistic about the future – and overall seem unhappy with the state
of the world that they have inherited. Overall, 37% of young people think the
world is getting worse, compared to 20% who think it is getting better (39% think
neither) (Broadbent, Gougoulis, Lui, Pota, & Simons, 2017). In March 2020, a
Pew Research Center survey showed that half of young people from Generation
Z (ages 18–23) reported that they or someone in their household had lost a job or
taken a cut in pay because of the outbreak.
Their greatest sources of anxiety, experienced by around half of Generation Z
throughout the world, were the age-old concerns of money and school. Despite
media focus on the issue, the pressures of social media were only seen by 10% of
young people as one of their main sources of anxiety. There is some variation in
the level of happiness depending on cultures. The highest happiness levels tend
to be in developing countries such as Indonesia (90%), Nigeria (78%), and India
(72%), and the lowest happiness levels are in advanced economies such as France
(57%), Australia (56%), and the United Kingdom (57%) (Broadbent et al., 2017).

A Creative Generation
Members of Generation Z seek to make, collaborate, and co-create, as they want
control and preference settings (Saettler, 2014). They apply their innate talent
with new technologies and social media to launch new businesses and participate
in the creation of new products that appeal to their peers and others. Online social
8    Elodie Gentina

networks function not only as socialising channels but also as means to partici-
pate in co-creation processes. Generation Z want to collaborate, interact, create,
and share their ideas on social media platforms. According to Gurtner and Soyez
(2016, p. 101), ‘young consumers can be described as “agents of changes” and
thus more open to innovative technologies’. As the most connected, educated,
and sophisticated generation in history, they don’t just represent the future, they
are creating it (Kingston, 2014).
Growing up in the midst of a recession makes Generation Z less likely to believe
in the availability and security of good jobs. Instead, they are more focussed on
creating opportunities for themselves. They exhibit strongly innovative, entrepre-
neurial, and independent spirits, and 40% of Generation Z claim that they plan to
invent something that will change the world (Seemiller, 2016). They place a lot of
emphasis on being resourceful and entrepreneurial: 72% of high school students
and 65% of college students want to start their own business (Gentina & Delé-
cluse, 2018). Not only is Generation Z a group of consumers, but they are also
the next generation of business owners. Generation Z will start businesses and the
peer-to-peer (P2P) economy will continue expanding.

A Generation Who Values Collaborative Consumption

Generation Z is often defined as a specific and unique class of materialistic con-
sumers. Their materialistic values – and modern young consumers (adolescents, chil-
dren) may be among ‘the most brand-oriented, consumer-involved, and materialistic
generation in history’ (Schor, 2004, p. 13) – are primarily determined during their
adolescent years, especially if they have sufficient material resources to achieve a spe-
cific, positive social identity through their consumption. Yet in contrast with these
seemingly widespread concerns about Generation Z’s materialism, we revisit the very
fundamental question about the extent to which Generation Z should be considered
materialistic consumers, in the conventional sense of the term. Generation Z val-
ues experience more than material goods and aims not mainly to possess items but
rather to exchange them. More specifically, the Coronavirus pandemic is likely to
change Generation Z’s perspective, because it has caused Generation Z to re-think
how they spend their money and what their financial goals are. Generation Z seeks
consumption-based, alternative means, such as exchanging and sharing practices.
Besides possessions (sharing tangibles), sharing intangibles such as sharing
online enables new sharing possibilities. Sharing with others online includes
open-source code writing; sharing information on Internet bulletin boards (BBs)
and chat rooms; publishing blogs (Weblogs), vlogs (video logs), and Web sites;
contributing to collaborative online games; participating in P2P file sharing,
maintaining listservs; and responding to e-mail requests. Those who make use
of these online resources are a part of Internet sharing. Generation Z is the first
digital native generation who is impacting the current P2P economy. According
to Nielsen (2018), among 68% of global respondents who rent products from oth-
ers in shared communities, 35% are Generation Z consumers.
The sharing economy is the result of living through the financial crisis and eco-
nomic slump, when the concept of ownership could feel fleeting. Collaborative
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    9

consumption is often associated with the sharing economy and takes place in
organised systems, in which participants conduct sharing activities in the form
of renting, lending, trading, bartering, and swapping goods and services, etc.
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2014). The main motives behind Generation Z’s
engagement in sharing practices are to satisfy their need of community belonging
and cost savings.

A Generation Looking Forward

Contrary to the myth of a self-absorbed generation, young people across the
globe have a strong commitment to their world: 67% say that making a wider con-
tribution to society (beyond looking after oneself and one’s family and friends)
is important.
Generation Z feels the weight of environmental issues, with 66% saying that
climate change makes them fearful for the future. Generation Z constitutes a
large citizen group, with the potential to exert a powerful collective drive towards
environmental protections in society (Lee, 2008). Supporters of environmen-
tal protection tend to be young and the majority of members of Generation Z
believe that their own actions are significant for environmental protections, such
as reducing car travel, decreasing hot water use, and sorting household waste
(Gentina & Muratore, 2012).
Another concern for Generation Z is the possibility of having access to a good
education. Two-thirds of young people (69%) are fearful of the future because of
the continued lack of education for some children.
Moreover, because Generation Z grew up as true digital natives, 84% of young
people overall across the world cite technological advancements (e.g. in medicine,
renewable energy, and computing) as a factor in making them feel hopeful for the
future. Other sources of hope, including ‘more peaceful values among the young
generation’ and ‘the global spread of democracy and human rights’, achieved
lower scores (74% and 69%, respectively). Young people place less faith in these
trends for the future (Broadbent et al., 2017).
Members of Generation Z overwhelmingly think that their values are influ-
enced by traditional sources: their parents first (89%) followed by friends (78%),
teachers (70%), and then celebrities (30%) and politicians (17%) (Broadbent
et al., 2017).

Tentative Observations of Generation Z in Asia

Parents and the Peer Group: Important Socialisation Agents in Asia
The Protected Role of Parents.  Parent–child interactions play a critical role in
children’s consumer socialisation (Yang & Laroche, 2011). Two dimensions char-
acterise parental messages: socio-orientation versus concept-orientation. Socio-
oriented messages promote conformity of the child to parental control, whereas
concept-oriented messages encourage children to develop their own ideas and pro-
mote an open exchange of ideas in parent–child relationships. Family communica-
tion patterns vary across cultures. Typically, parents from individualistic cultures
10    Elodie Gentina

(e.g. United States, United Kingdom) promote independence, self-­reliance, and

assertiveness in their children, by encouraging their children to be self-expressive,
and, thus, tend to be more concept-oriented in their communication with their
children. In contrast, Asiatic parents from collectivist cultures value dependence,
self-discipline, obedience to rules, and adult authority, and, thus, tend to be more
socio-oriented in their communication with their children (Rose, Bush, & Kahle,
1998). Collectivist values are at the centre of children’s socialisation in Asiatic
culture. For instance, in China, the Confucian value, filial piety is particularly
related to Chinese parent–child communication. The notion of filial piety dictates
that children obey their parents without question. In Japan, mothers encourage
consideration for others, strong family attachments, and the desire to please the
family (Hess, Keiko, Hiroshi, & Gary, 1980). ‘Doi (1962, p. 132) believes “amae” –
a highly interdependent and indulgent relationship that encourages dependence
on others – is the key to understanding relationships between Japanese parents
and their children’ (Rose, 1999, p. 806). Japanese parents foster respect for paren-
tal authority and obedience to seniors (Sakashita & Kimura, 2011). In India,
parents maintain a high level of control over their children. Although some dif-
ferences exist among social strata, Indians value tradition, conformity, and strong
family ties (Singh & Smith, 2001). In general, parents from Asiatic and collectivist
cultures consider Generation Z consumers as too immature to make their own
decisions and exert control over their attempts at influence (Rose, Dalakas, &
Kropp, 2003).
One under-researched issue is: How members of Generation Z actually influ-
ence their parents’ consumer behaviours in Asia? More importantly, from a
theoretical perspective, what processes lead young people in Asia to affect their
parents’ consumption behaviours, and what strategies do they use?
One facet of socialisation involves learning how to become a competent agent of
influence through the use of sophisticated influence strategies (John, 1999). Litera-
ture suggests that these strategies can be classified into two categories: unilateral and
bilateral strategies (Bao, Fern, & Sheng, 2007). The former is one-sided, whereas
the latter is bidirectional and dynamic (Cowan & Avants, 1988). Typical unilateral
strategies refer to direct request, persuasion, and playing on emotions while typical
bilateral strategies include bargaining, reasoning, and coalition (Bao et al., 2007).
How do these two types of influence strategies and parental styles differ in Asia?
The Normative Influence of the Peer Group.  While young people are generally
susceptible to peer influence, it would be useful to analyse how the nature of such
interpersonal influence differs across East Asia through South Asia, Southeast
Asia to Western Asia. The measure of susceptibility to peer influence relies on
Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel’s (1989) scale, which comprises two dimensions.
The first, normative influence, is defined as ‘the need to enhance one’s image with
significant others or to conform to the expectations of others regarding purchase
decisions’. The second, informative influence, refers to the ‘tendency to learn
about products or brands by observing and/or seeking information from others’
(Bearden et al., 1989, p. 474). Do young people from Generation Z prefer to use
specific sources of influence, normative versus. informative, and are there some
differences depending on the country in Asia?
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    11

The Impact of Technology on Asiatic Digital Natives

Digital natives around the world have a lot in common: hyper connectivity, con-
stant attachment to their smartphone, a connection with digital influencers, and
the ability to easily learn new technologies. However, are digital natives com-
pletely homogenous in Asia?
The rise of the penetration of mobile phones in Asia drives widespread Inter-
net connectivity, and transforms consumer behaviour. In 2014, Asia had 3.3 bil-
lion mobile phone subscriptions, or nearly one for every man, woman, and child.
By 2019, the region will have almost 4.3 billion mobile subscriptions, or 117 for
every 100 people (Asia’s Digital Disruption, 2015). Asia maintains and outper-
forms the rest of the world with regards to the Internet or mobile phone usage. On
the Internet population ranking, Japan (94%), South Korea (92%), and Taiwan
(88%) are the leading localities, according to the Youth Mobility Index (YMI,
Asia, 2018). Although South Korea and Taiwan fall behind Japan in the area of
Internet usage, the highest percentage of digital natives was found in South Korea
(7%) and Taiwan (10.3%).
Smartphones come to the fore once more when Snapchatters are asked to
select the device they consider to be their most important Internet access point:
51% of Asiatic people say smartphones are the most important device for using
the Internet, compared to 38% of people from North America and 43% of people
from Europe.
Nearly one billion individuals across Asia are now active users of social media.
There are some differences of the type of online social network across different
countries. Snapchatters in the Western regions of North America and Europe
tend to be much more engaged with Snapchat than their counterparts in the Asia
Pacific. To take an example, 62% of Snapchatters in North America report engag-
ing with Snapchat at least once a day, compared to less than a quarter among
those in Asia Pacific. Moreover, although Facebook is still the most popular plat-
form in the world, specific platforms are important especially in China where
Facebook is blocked. In China, the most successful platforms are messaging apps
rather than the broadcasting format. For instance, WeChat (86%) is the dominant
force in China, with microblogging platform Sina Weibo (67%), video service
Youku (64%), and Qzone (63%) in the next tier of services (Global Web Index,
2018). Line in Japan, and Kakao in Korea.
Moreover, live video broadcast is a huge business in Asia. Of total Internet
users in China, half of them uses live streaming apps. In Japan, Thailand, and
Korea, users watch 300–500 min of live streaming content per month.

Questions Dealing with Generation Z in Asia

Smartphones as Part of Life in Asia
Beyond describing the different uses of online social networks in Asia, a key ques-
tion is to examine Asiatic cultural differences in the motivations that lead Genera-
tion Z to use online social networks and their smartphones. Are there similarities
or differences in such motivations related to the use of online social networks
12    Elodie Gentina

across Asiatic cultures? Understanding these mechanisms and their differences

in Asia is of crucial importance for socially responsible marketers who aim to
connect with Generation Z consumers in Asia, and for policy makers who aim to
protect young people from the long-term negative effects of smartphone depend-
ency. How do marketers and policy-makers tailor their messages and communica-
tion strategies to fit the different motivations that underlie the use of online social
networks and smartphone?
Smartphones are central to many societies but they have been integrated into
Asian cultures in many ways: ‘there is the obligatory “food porn” photograph at
the beginning of any meal; in Japan it is an entire subculture with its own name –
keitai culture’ (Chen, 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33130567).
Moreover, there is a clear difference between Western and Eastern cultures when
it comes to education. For instance, in China, young people and their parents are
looking for high-quality education and understand the importance of education.
In some Asiatic societies where young students are hard workers, the smartphone
is their only connection to friends. How do different forms of education as well as
parental styles in Asia affect smartphone use?
Addiction to smartphone usage is a common problem among Generation Z
worldwide. It manifests itself in the excessive usage of their phones. Given the
emergence of the global smartphone teen market, the need to understand smart-
phone addiction and the mechanisms underlying smartphone addiction among
Generation Z is also salient from a cross-cultural perspective (Wang, Sigerson, &
Cheng, 2019).
But are all of Generation Z addicted to their smartphone? Does Generation Z
in Asia prefer online or offline methods, and why? Asia tends to be a global
collectivist culture in which people usually consider the need of the group (fami-
lies, friends) and feel more connected to the group. Because nomophobia is
the degree of an individual’s anxiety at not being able to communicate with
the group by losing connectedness (Yildirim & Correia, 2015), recent research
hypothesises that individuals living in a collectivist culture (such as Asia) would
have more nomophobic tendencies (Arpaci, Yardimci Cetin, & Turetken, 2015).
For instance, Arpaci (2017) makes the distinction between horizontal collec-
tivism versus vertical collectivism (emphasising hierarchy) and has shown that
nomophobia is significant only in vertical collectivistic cultures, but not in hori-
zontal collectivistic (emphasising equality) cultures. Moreover, Hofstede (2003)
argued that countries with low power distance but high uncertainty avoidance
(such as Japan) tend to adopt advanced technologies more quickly. Therefore,
the theoretical cultural dimension theory developed by Hofstede (2001) may
have interesting implications for the way in which Asiatic Generation Z uses
interactive technologies.

Shopping Behaviours and Consumer Decision Making in Asia

Research to date has often assumed the similarity of Generation Z in their shop-
ping behaviours (e.g. Tully, 1994). However, little is known about cross-cultural
differences in consumer decision making styles and shopping behaviour across
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    13

cultures. Several motives of shopping are socially and culturally anchored. More-
over, fundamental differences in parental socialisation philosophies that exist
between Eastern and Western cultures may impact Generation Z’s decision-mak-
ing styles. It is widely believed that Asiatic parents exhibit a high level of control
over their children, are protective, and alert their children to always try to ‘do
things right’.
However, it is important to note that the traditional Asiatic family system,
which values children’s dependence on the family and the unquestioned accept-
ance of parental authority, can be questioned today. For instance, China is a col-
lectivist culture with high-power distance (Hofstede, 2001), which explains that
Chinese parents have strict control over the kinds of products their children can
or cannot buy. But today modern Chinese parents also allow their children more
freedom in choice of brands of the permissible products.
Are there different shopping orientations (utilitarian vs. hedonic) across Asi-
atic cultures? Does Asiatic Generation Z place more importance on price and
performance attributes (utilitarian orientation) or on emotional image attributes
(hedonic orientation) when making purchase decisions?

From Purchasing to Sharing: Generation Z and Collaborative

Consumption in Asia
The concept of consumer sharing is attracting the attention of both research-
ers and practitioners given the growth of the sharing economy (Gansky, 2010).
Most of research on sharing has focussed primarily on individual consumers in
single and individualistic national contexts e.g. the United States (Bardhi & Eck-
hardt, 2012; Lamberton & Rose, 2012), Canada (Scaraboto, 2015), New Zealand
(Ozanne & Ozanne, 2011), France (Gentina & Fosse-Gomez, 2012), and England
(Tinson & Nuttall, 2007). However, a few studies have examined sharing prac-
tices in families in collectivistic and Asiatic cultures (Gentina, Hogg, & Sakashita,
2017; Gentina, Huarn, & Sakashita, 2018).
Statistics have shown that among those who are willing to participate in a
shared economy, almost half in Asia Pacific (49%) and Middle East/Africa (45%)
are Generation Z, compared with 28% in Latin America, 18% in North America,
and 17% in Europe (Nielsen’s Global Sharing Economies Report, 2013). Ques-
tions that could be asked about this include:

- How do contemporary consumers in Asia draw distinctions between sharing,

lending/borrowing, gift giving, and commodity exchange? How do these dis-
tinctions differ across cultural, economic, and political systems in Asia?
- What does Generation Z share in Asia: tangible goods or intangibles such as
experiences? What are the new forms of sharing in Asia? With whom do mem-
bers of Generation Z share (family or outside the family)?
- How do sharing practices differ across different family structures and Asi-
atic cultures in which different emphases on extended family, differing gender
roles, alternative notions of gendered spaces, and different degrees of collectiv-
ism are common (Belk, 2010)?
14    Elodie Gentina

- What are the psychological and social mechanisms that explain such cross-
cultural differences in sharing practices?
- What can be done to encourage prosocial sharing of rides, cars, durables, toys,
and other resources that are now used wastefully?

Prior research has shown that the practices of sharing are much more intense
in collectivistic cultures which value social links and consideration of others, than
in individualistic countries, which emphasise individual assertiveness (Belk, 2007).
For instance, this positive view of interdependence is demonstrated through the
intense experiences of sharing rituals in China, as seen in high preference for group
travels, beverage sharing (Gongfu tea ceremony), and others. Both the Chinese
national culture and their religion stress sharing practices: Buddhism emphasises
‘dana’, or generous sharing; and Confucianism ‘shi’, or giving, as an antidote to
consumerism. Shi (giving) can be linked up with different nouns, including giv-
ing goods (shi shan) and giving medicine (shi-yi), but much more often with giving
teaching/education (shi jiao). The result is not only less materialism but also more
community. Sharing is viewed as a prescribed norm in China with the concept of
‘zhanguang’ (meaning ‘share the light’) (Belk, 2007; Gentina, Tang, & Gu, 2017).
Sharing is also viewed as a prescribed norm in Japan (Gentina et al., 2017),
which values social links and consideration of others. The sense of a ‘we identity’
governed by the perspective of ‘being part of a cohesive whole, whether it be (that
of) a family, clan, tribe, or nation’ (Belk, 1984, p. 754) is demonstrated through the
intense experiences of sharing rituals, such as the communal bath house (Sentō
and onsen), the tea ceremony (Sado or way of tea), and the spring cherry blossom
festival where families and friends share food and drink to celebrate the start of
spring (Hanami).
What is the nature of sharing in Asia? Does sharing refer to an other-oriented,
an act of ‘generosity’, which is regarded as positive, productive, and enjoyable
leisure activity? Or instead, does sharing refer to an egoistic act, turned towards
individuals themselves, rather than altruistic?
The concept of ‘self’ is a fundamental assumption shared within a culture,
which may help understand the other-oriented vs. self-centred nature of con-
sumer behaviour (Tynan, McKechnie, & Chhuon, 2010). In a collectivist culture,
the sense of self is governed by the perspective of ‘being part of cohesive whole,
whether it be (that of) a family, clan, tribe, or nation’ (Belk, 1984, p. 754).

Future Generation Z at Work Across Asia

What is the relationship of Generation Z in Asia to work and to management?
What are their expectations from a company? How should managers respond to
these expectations?
ADECCO (2014) conducted a survey among 948 Generation Z across Asia,
comprising respondents from China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Sin-
gapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The survey assessed Generation Z’s
ambitions, their employment preferences, their attitudes to the workplace, and
how optimistic they are about the future – in work and in life. Interesting cultural
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    15

differences were underlined. For instance, in South East Asia, members of Gen-
eration Z seem more confident than younger people in China and North Asia
about how the educational system will prepare them for the workplace.
Social media is also a relevant criterion in shaping their choices for employ-
ment: 26% of Asiatic members of Generation Z state that they plan to use social
media to seek advice on career. The leads to the following questions:
What motivates Generation Z in Asia at work? Are there different sources
of motivation depending on the different national cultures in Asia? Concerning
the sources of motivations, more than 50% of members of Generation Z in Asia
are ready to choose a first job with a lower salary to get better training and have
experience. They seem to prefer to work in an interesting environment for their
first employment.
Moreover, why is Asiatic Generation Z talent more likely to pursue entrepre-
neurship? May be due to the fact that technology is so malleable in a sense that
creates the opportunity for customised experience, members of Generation Z step
away from traditional and defined roles. According to ADECCO (2014), 30% of
Generation Z in Asia state that they would like to start their own business. They
will start their own business as a start-up rather than taking over an existing busi-
ness such as family company.
How is optimism versus pessimism shaping Generation Z in Asia? With Asia
being the world’s growth region, Asiatic young people tend to be optimistic and
think that they will be better off than their parents, contrary to the European
Generation Z who are rather pessimistic. In which sector of activity does Gen-
eration Z in Asia want to work? It appears that Asiatic Generation Z shows no
interest in traditional industries (manufacturing) but prefers to work in service
industries (advertising, marketing, consulting, media, hospitality, arts, sports,
and entertainment). If at all, for which countries does this hold true? And what
could be the consequences?

Conclusion
We know quite a lot about global patterns of Generation Z. We have a few assump-
tions about Generation Z in Asia, but many questions. Given the relevance of Asia
as a whole and the countries behind it, these questions need answers. However,
Asia is no homogeneous area. Therefore, it makes no sense to go at least at this
point for generalisable conclusions: We have to understand each country in its indi-
viduality, with the drivers behind the development of the Generation Z in its coun-
tries, with its norms and values, with its behaviour, both as consumer and at work.
This book is one of the first to provide a detailed examination of this gen-
eration within Asia, comparing the Asiatic Generation Z in relation to country
and culture-specific drivers based on interdisciplinary and international scientific
research. It presents a generation born with digitalisation and mobile technol-
ogy, who have grown up through COVID-19 and climate change. We do not talk
about ‘the’ Generation Z in Asia in the singular, because beyond the similarities
between young people in Asia, we identify striking differences. As a result, we
prefer to use the plural and talk about Generations Z in Asia. The objective of
16    Elodie Gentina

the book is to give the reader a chance to understand Generation Z across Asia.
This includes societal and managerial feelings, goals, concerns, and behaviour
of a vast continent that stretches from East Asia through South Asia, Southeast
Asia to Western Asia.
The books is structured in 11 country-specific chapters stretching from East
Asia through South Asia, Southeast Asia to Western Asia: China, Hong Kong,
Japan, and Taiwan (East China); India and Pakistan (South Asia); Indonesia,
Vietnam, and Malaysia (Southeast Asia); and Turkey and UAE (Western-Asia).
All country-specific chapters follow the same structure, with every chapter giv-
ing us analyses of native researchers from across Asia. The book starts by con-
textualising the research: demographics; industry structure; economic growth;
identity (preservation of local differences, regional integration); general values
and norms (economic growth and values); socialisation (parents, peers, school);
and public policy. Second, the book describes the main characteristics of Gen-
eration Z: description (size, behaviour, values, dreams, fears, political attitude);
social media life (digital revolution, the role of influencers, web 2.0/3.0/4.0, com-
munity, online social networks, smartphone, Internet); ethics; and public policy
(standard of what is right or wrong, what is considered as ethical for Gen Z)
and special features (for instance ‘maker scene’). Third, it describes members of
Generation Z as consumers using a range of theoretical approaches and scientific
backgrounds: e.g. shopping behaviours (retail, at the mall/online, how the web
changes shopping behaviour); buying, having, being (materialism, relations with
brands, brand loyalty/products vs. sharing, collaborative consumption). Fifth, it
presents Generation Z at work, focussing on both their expectations (work–life
blending, vision of the work place of the future, loyalty) and their behaviours
within companies (communication, digitalisation, relationships with the team,
authority/leadership, intrapreneurship/entrepreneurship). The last section gives
some managerial implications so that readers understand how to deal with Gen-
eration Z in marketing and in management, telling readers how to deal with Gen-
eration Z as future consumers and workers in Asia.

References
ADECCO. (2014). Generation Z – The next generation of workers in Asia. An Adecco Asia
Research Study & White Paper, Quarter 2.
Arpaci, I. (2017). Culture and nomophobia: The role of vertical versus horizontal collectiv-
ism in predicting nomophobia. Information Development, 35(2), 1–11.
Arpaci I, Yardimci, C. Y., & Turetken, O. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of smartphone
adoption by Canadian and Turkish organizations. Journal of Global Information
Technology Management, 18(3), 214–238.
Asia’s Digital Disruption. (2015). Infograph: How technology has changed Asia’s con-
sumer behavior. Retrieved from https://www.marketing-interactive.com/infograph-
technology-changes-consumer-behaviour/
Attias-Donfut, C. (1988). Sociologie des générations: l’empreinte du temps. Paris : Presses
Universitaires de France.
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    17

Bao, Y., Fern, E. F., & Sheng, S. (2007). Parental style and adolescents in family consump-
tion decisions: An integrative approach. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 672–680.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–527.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. T. (1989). Measurement of consumer sus-
ceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 473–481.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Belk, R. W. (1984). Cultural and historical differences in concepts of self and their effects
on attitudes toward having and giving. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 11, pp. 754–763). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Belk, R. W. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140.
Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.
Boyd, D. (2010). Ethical determinants for generations X and Y. Journal of Business Ethics,
93, 465–469.
Broadbent, E., Gougoulis, J., Lui, N., Pota, V., & Simons, J. (2017, January). Generation Z:
Global citizenship survey. London: Varkey Foundation. Retrieved from https://
www.varkeyfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Young%20People%20
Report%20(digital)%20NEW%20(1).pdf. Accessed on March, 15, 2018.
Business Insider Survey. (2018). Gen Zs never watch TV, are stressed about Snapchat,
and are concerned that technology has ruined their mental health—Here’s what it’s
REALLY like to be a teen in 2018. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/
teens-gen-z-generation-z-what-teens-are-like-2018-6
Chen, H. (2015). Asia’s smartphone addiction. BBC News, Singapore. Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33130567
Common Sense Media – SurveyMonkey Poll. (2020). How teens are coping and connecting
in the time of the Coronavirus. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/
sites/default/files/uploads/pdfs/2020_surveymonkey-key-findings-toplines-teens-
and-coronavirus.pdf
Cowan, G., & Avants, K. (1988). Children’s influence strategies: Structure, sex differences,
and bilateral mother–child influence. Child Development, 59(5), 1303–1313.
Dingli, A., & Seychell, D. (2015). The new digital natives. Cutting the chord. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Doi, T. (1962). Amae: A key concept for understanding Japanese personality structure. In
J. Smith & R. K. Beardsley (Eds.), Publications in anthropology (pp. 132–139). New
York, NY: Viking Fund Publications.
Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Freestone, O., & Mitchell, V. W. (2004). Generation Y attitudes towards e-ethics and
Internet-related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 121-128.
Gansky, L. (2010). The Mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York, NY: Penguin
Group.
Gentina, E., & Delécluse, M. E. (2018). La Génération Z: Des Z Consommateurs aux Z
Collaborateurs [Generation Z: From Z consumers to Z co-Workers]. Paris: Dunod
(in French).
Gentina, E., & Fosse-Gomez, M. H. (2012). Shall we share our clothes? Understanding
clothing exchanges with friends during adolescence. In K. Diehl & C. Yoon (Eds.),
Advances in consumer research (Vol. 43, pp. 181–185). Duluth, MN: Association for
Consumer Research.
18    Elodie Gentina

Gentina, E., Hogg, M. K., & Sakashita, M. (2017). Identity (re)construction through
sharing: A study of mother and teenage daughter dyads in France and Japan.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37, 67–77.
Gentina, E., Huaran, K. H., & Sakashita, M. (2018). A social comparison theory approach
to mothers’ and daughters’ clothing co-consumption behaviors: A cross-cultural
study in France and Japan. Journal of Business Research, 89, 361–370.
Gentina, E., & Muratore, I. (2012). The process of ecological resocialization by teenagers.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(2), 162–169.
Gentina, E., Tang, T. L. P., & Gu, X. (2017). Does bad company corrupt good morals?
Social bonding and academic cheating among French and Chinese teens. Journal of
Business Ethics, 146(43), 639–667.
Global Web Index. (2018). Millennials. Examining the attitudes and digital behaviors of
Internet users aged 21–34.
Gökçearslan, Ş., Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Çevik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smart-
phone addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy
and cyberloafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639–649.
Gurtner, S., & Soyez, K. (2016.) How to catch the generation Y: Identifying consumers
of ecological innovations among youngsters. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, 106, 101–107.
Hess, R. D., Keiko, K., Hiroshi, A., & Gary, G. P. (1980, December). Maternal expectations
for mastery of developmental tasks in Japan and the United States. International
Journal of Psychology, 15, 259–271.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hsiao, C.-H., & Chang, W.-L. (2007). The relationship between money attitude and com-
pulsive buying among Taiwan’s Generation X and Y. Journal of Accounting, Finance
and Management Strategy, 3(2), 95–114.
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialisation of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five
years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.
Kingston, A. (2014). Get ready for Generation Z. Retrived from: http://www.macleans.ca/
society/life/get-ready-for-generation-z/
Kjeldgaard, D., & Askegaard S. (2006). The glocalization of youth culture: The global
youth segment as structures of common differences. Journal of Consumer Research,
33(2), 231–247.
Kwon, S. J., Park, E., & Kim, K. J. (2014). What drives successful social networking ser-
vices? A comparative analysis of user acceptance of Facebook and Twitter. The
Social Science Journal, 51, 534–544.
Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for
understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of
Marketing, 76(4), 109–125.
Lee, K. (2008). Factors promoting effective environmental communication to adolescents:
A study of Hong Kong. China Media Research, 4(3), 28–96.
Nielsen’s Global Sharing Economies Report. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.collabo-
riamo.org/media/2014/06/global-share-community-report-may-2014.pdf
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and
informal learning at University: It is more for socialising and talking to friends about
work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155.
Ozanne, L. K., & Ozanne, J. L. (2011). A child’s right to play: The social construction of
civic virtues in toy libraries. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30(2), 263–276.
Pekerti, A. A., & Denni, D. (2017). Do cultural and generational cohorts matter to ideolo-
gies and consumer ethics? A comparative study of Australians, Indonesians, and
Indonesian Migrants in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 387–404.
 Generation Z in Asia: A Research Agenda    19

Pew Research Center. (2017). About 6 in 10 young adults in U.S. primarily use online stream-
ing to watch TV. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/13/
about-6-in-10-young-adults-in-u-s-primarily-use-online-streaming-to-watch-tv/
Pew Research Center. (2020). On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future:
What we know about Gen Z so far. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/
essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-
about-gen-z-so-far/
Roberts, J., Yaya, L., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone activi-
ties and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 3(4), 254–265.
Rose, G. M. (1999). Consumer socialization, parental style, and developmental timetables
in the United States and Japan. Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 105-119.
Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Kahle, L. R. (1998). The influence of family communication
patterns on parental reactions towards advertising: A cross-national examination.
Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 71–85.
Rose, G. M., Dalakas, V., & Kropp, F. (2003). Consumer socialisation and parental style
across cultures: Findings from Australia, Greece and India. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13(4), 366–376.
Saettler, M. (2014). How to target Gen Z, the new consumer on the block, via mobile.
Retrived from http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/research/18316.html
Sakashita, M., & Kimura J. (2011). Daughter as mother’s extended self. In A. Bradshaw,
C. Hackley, P. Maclaran (Eds.), European Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 9,
pp. 283–289). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Scaraboto, D. (2015, June). Selling, sharing, and everything in between: The hybrid econo-
mies of collaborative networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 152–176.
Schor, J. B. (2014). Born to buy: The commercialized child and the new consumer cult. New
YorK, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Seemiller, C. (2016). Three identities of the Generation Z Era: The inventor. Retrived
from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/3-identities-generation-z-era-inventor-corey-
seemiller-phd
Singh, V., & Smith, P. (2001). India gets by. New York Times Upfront, 133, 14–17.
Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generatv for the New Millenium. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382.
Tinson, J., & Nuttall, P. (2007). Insider trading? Exploring familial intra-generational bor-
rowing and sharing. The Marketing Review, 7(2), 185–200.
Tully, S. (1994). Teens: The most global market of all. Fortune, May 16, 34–41.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands.
Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1156–1163.
Wang, H. Y., Sigerson, L., & Cheng, C. (2019). Digital nativity and information technology
addiction: Age cohort versus individual difference approaches. Computers in Human
Behavior, 90, 1–9.
Yang, Z., & Laroche, M. (2011). Parental responsiveness and adolescent susceptibility
to peer influence: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Business Research, 64,
979–987.
Yildirim, C., & Correia, A. P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia:
Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in Human
Behavior, 49, 130-137.
Youth Mobility Asia. (2018). The Digital Natives’ Republic of Asia Dakki Kong, Feb 15,
2018 YMI Blog.