Popular names less popular these days?
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 05-10-2007 - 4:36pm |
I've noticed—as have many of you in your comments on this board—that the most popular names today still represent a much smaller percentage of total babies born than they did in earlier generations. This is, of course, incredibly marked between the early years of the SSA records and today, but it seems as though it has been an even more rapid process in the past few decades. A quick comparison of some statistics (okay, not so quick—I’m procrastinating from writing my thesis):
In the 1880s, 38% of all boy’s names were in the top 10, 50% were in top 20, and 7.6% of male babies were named John, the most common name of the decade. In 1980s, 15% of boy’s names were in the top 10, 34% in top 20, and 3.5% of male babies were named Michael, the most common name of the decade. In the 2000s, so far, 11% of boy’s names have been in the top 10, 20% in top 20, and 1.4% of male babies have been named Jacob, the most common name of the decade so far.
In the 1880s, 21% of all girl’s names were in the top 10, 32% were in top 20, and 6.6% of female babies were named Mary, the most common name of the decade. In 1980s, 16% of girl’s names were in the top 10, 24% in top 20, and 2.6% of female babies were named Jessica, the most common name of the decade. In the 2000s, so far, 8.5% of girl’s names have been in the top 10, 14% in top 20, and 1.25% of female babies have been named Emily, the most common name of the decade so far.
Since the 1960s, Michael has fallen from 4.1% of boys to 1.3% of boys and has only moved from #1 to #2 in the rankings for most popular boys’ name. In the 1980s, almost 9% of the girls born were named Jessica, Jennifer, Amanda or Ashley (each at about 2%). In this decade so far, 4% of girls have been named Emily, Madison, Hannah or Emma.
I’m really interested in why the gap between the naming of the 1980s and this decade has happened. Of course, it could just be the "relentless drive toward individuality," or simply an attempt by the little Jessicas and Michaels of yesterday to name their children something less common than their own names. Or, we could simply be using more versions of some names, skewing the statistics (Emily and Emma; Elizabeth, Elspeth and Beth; Madison and Madisyn).
But, I’m inclined toward the idea that the internet, with its rapid information exchange is largely responsible for the decrease. Before the internet, parents had very little idea what others were naming their babies, especially if it was their first and they weren’t part of circles with a lot of young children. Even today, we are surrounded by people naming their daughters Ava or Hannah and thinking it is unique or unusual. Before the internet made statistics on baby names widely available—and allowed forums like this one to exist :)—I think people didn’t have the same grasp on the popularity of names that we do now, so they thought more about what was pretty than about how many other Stephanies and Melissas their child was going to encounter in their lives.
Just some thoughts, while I wait impatiently for the SSA's 2006 rankings to come out tomorrow morning. I’d love to hear what you think.
Becky


I think you're right on point with a lot of that. ;)
The internet (and other mediums not previously available) definitely contributes. And I don't know if I'd pigeonhole it to simply parents seeking unique names, but I do think people are more WILLING to branch out from the usual choices. Not simply in the pursuit of individualism, but even in choosing names to reflect their heritage that might have been looked at as odd or "un-American" in the past.
For example, a German family (first generation American) might not feel the need to use an "American-sounding" name, when Anneliese, Anika, Christoph or Conrad wouldn't be looked at -- or looked down on -- as particularly ethnic choices as they once may have been. Along those same lines, many are now embracing their heritage/culture, and looking for names that reflect that, so a little Irish or Scottish
Powered by CGISpy.com
You have made some very valid points. I love your research. One thought that crossed my mind, though, was that the population increase should play a part in your statistics.
When keeping in mind the population difference in the 1880s vs. the 1980s, the 7.6% named John and the 3.5% named Michael may be closer than it seems if you look at the actual #s of children with these names.
Overall, though, I think the Internet, television and other mediums have definitely played a part in raising awareness of popular names on a nationwide basis.
Well, we have all of those reasons, as well as the butchered spellings that actually skew statistics...when you combine Madison, Maddison, Madyson, Madisyn, etc, that ups the count for total Madison-names (since the SS stats count each seperately.)
I think there are a lot more names that are considered acceptable nowdays than there were when we were named. Ethnic names, old people names, formal names--these things weren't considered "cool" when I was named. There was a huge drive for nicknames and the all-American name and definitely not for anything considered musty. (I remember pitying the girl at school named Violet because...well...her name was VIOLET, just like an old lady!) So I don't like to fall into the trap of finding a name dated because the only names I find dated right now are the ones that have been overly common in the last 10 years.
Dee
mom to Ava 4 years 8 months old
28 weeks preg. with Carys
Powered by CGISpy.com
For me and DH this is one of our reasons (not the most important one but definitely on the list)
"...simply an attempt by the little Jessicas and Michaels of yesterday to name their children something less common than their own names"
My name is Stephanie and DH is Jeffrey. The decade I was born it was #9. DHs name was #16. I hated being Stephanie L....I hated that my name was the same as up to 4 other people in my class...mostly I hated my name (its kind of grown on me over time so now I figure its an alright name but I'm still not super fussy on it).
Our children are Rhys, Niamh and Isla. We tried to pick names that were a bit different, reflected our heritage and were easy to say (if not spell). I think we managed to find pretty good choices (though others might disagree). I still love my childrens names and wouldn't change them even if I could so I figure that says something :)
Steph
momma to
Rhys, Niamh, Isla and Deirdre!Your theory about the Internet is exactly right.
You might also be interested to know (if you don't already) that we tend to follow the British in our taste (every once in a while, they snag a name from us too). So if you really want to know where we're headed, take a look at their top 100.
Fun read!
Ginger
Ginger
I just think it's because there are so many more names now than 100 years ago - or 50 years ago - back then people weren't into making names up, spelling things differently etc
everyone used 'mainstream' names for the most part back then