The claim that children raised in the sixties and seventies handle adversity better than younger generations is a fixture of family arguments and comment threads, usually delivered with total confidence and a story about walking to school alone at seven. It deserves neither a reflexive eye-roll nor an approving nod, but an honest look, because part of it rests on real evidence and part of it is one of the oldest illusions people fall for. Sorting the two is the whole task. Here is what actually holds up, and where the confidence runs well ahead of the facts.
The real thing underneath the claim
Start with the strongest evidence, because there genuinely is some. The freedom of children to roam, play and act without an adult hovering nearby has fallen steadily over exactly the decades in question, and that decline lines up with the rise in youth anxiety and depression. The psychologist Peter Gray and colleagues, reviewing the evidence in 2023, argued that the long decline in children’s opportunities for independent activity is a major cause of the decline in their mental wellbeing, in part because independent activity builds a child’s internal sense of control over their own life, and a low sense of such control strongly predicts anxiety and depression.
This is the defensible core of the claim. A child of the seventies who navigated the neighborhood alone, sorted out playground disputes without a referee, and got themselves home was, in effect, practicing the very thing the research says protects against anxiety. The point is not that those children were made of sterner stuff. It is that they were handed more chances to build the muscle, and today’s children get fewer.
The Artful Age
A weekly letter on aging well, family across generations, and the creative life after the kids leave home.
Why a dose of difficulty helps, and why more is not the lesson
There is a second real finding, and it matters because it rescues the sensible half of the claim while demolishing the crude half. The link between adversity and resilience is not a straight line but a curve. In a long-term national study, the psychologist Mark Seery and colleagues found that people who had experienced some adversity in life reported better mental health and life satisfaction than both people with a great deal of adversity and people with none at all.
Read that carefully, because it cuts both ways. A manageable amount of difficulty does build resilience; a frictionless childhood does not. But an overwhelming amount erodes resilience rather than forging it. So the reasonable version of the claim, that facing some hardship helps a child grow sturdy, is supported. The crude version, that more hardship makes tougher people and therefore the harder past was better, is not. The past was not superior for being harsher. At most it offered some children more of the middle dose, and that is a very different statement.
Now the illusion
Here the confidence starts to outrun the evidence, because the belief that the young have gone soft is one of the most reliable errors in psychology. Adults have complained that the next generation cannot cope for as long as there have been records to complain in. Two biases keep the illusion alive. The first is rosy retrospection: we remember our own childhoods as tougher yet fine, quietly editing out the fear, the cruelty and the children who did not come through it at all. That last point is survivorship bias in its plainest form, since the people harmed by a hard childhood are not the ones writing fond posts about how it built character.
The second is a category error. Younger generations are far more willing to name distress, ask for help, and use the vocabulary of mental health, and to a generation trained to swallow all of that, the openness looks like fragility. It is not. It is a change in what people are willing to say, not necessarily in what they can withstand. Rising reported anxiety is some genuine increase in suffering and some increase in honesty, and the two are genuinely hard to separate, which is exactly the nuance the confident claim skips.
What the younger generations actually face
Fairness requires naming the other side of the ledger too. Today’s children cope with adversities the seventies child never met: a comparison machine in their pocket that never switches off, a brutal housing and job market, and a steady background hum of economic and climate dread. Handling that world at all is its own kind of resilience, in a domain the older generation was never tested in. And the toughness of the earlier era often meant unaddressed trauma, corporal punishment treated as normal, far more children killed in accidents, and a great deal of pain simply endured in silence because there was nowhere to take it. Silence is not the same as strength. Counting it as strength is the mistake at the very heart of the nostalgia.
Where it leaves us
The honest verdict is split down the middle. There is a real, evidence-backed kernel: children then had more independence, and independence combined with a manageable dose of difficulty builds the internal sense of control that resilience is made of, and children now get less of both. That deserves to be taken seriously, and it points to a problem we can actually fix. But the sweeping conclusion that earlier generations handled adversity better is mostly rosy retrospection, survivorship bias, and the confusion of silence with strength. The useful response is not to envy a harder past or to scold a softer present. It is to give children back the one ingredient the research genuinely supports: the room to face real, manageable difficulty on their own, and to discover they can.