Hellevik, O. (2002). ”Age differences in value orientation – life cycle or cohort effect?” International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Vol. 14, nr. 3. Side 286-302.

Age differences in value orientation

– life cycle or cohort effects?

Ottar Hellevik

ABSTRACT

A series of biennial surveys in Norway have found large age differences in value orientation, exceeding those found for other social background variables. What lies behind the age differences, cohort or life cycle effects, is investigated by means of cohort analyses. A change diagram permitting the simultaneous presentation of results for several variables is developed. The pattern of change is varied, whether one looks at value dimensions, indexes or indicators, suggesting the existence of stable cohort differences as well as changing preferences over time for individuals. The substance of the results contradicts the postmaterialism theory of Ronald Inglehart. The population trends, as well as the preferences of the young, are characterised by a preoccupation with material possessions and consumption rather than postmaterialist values.

Differences in value orientation between age groups are larger than the differences found for any other social background variable. To explain cultural change in the past, and to predict future trends, it is important to establish what caused the age differences, cohort or life cycle effects. Are the age groups different because they represent cohorts growing up under different circumstances, or because they have reached different stages in their life cycle? In the first case cohort replacement will contribute to cultural change, in the last case the age differences are without consequence for cultural trends in a society.

The relative importance of life cycle versus cohort effects is tested by means of cohort analyses of data on value dimensions from a series of biennial surveys of the Norwegian population carried out since 1985. Difficulties in interpreting the results of cohort analyses are discussed, and a simple way of summarising such results graphically is outlined. The substance of the results contradicts the postmaterialism theory of Ronald Inglehart.

THE NORWEGIAN MONITOR VALUE STUDY

Since 1985 large surveys, both in terms of sample size (increasing from 2200 in the first wave to more than 4000 in the last ones) and number of questions (close to 3000) have been carried out every second year by the market research institute MMI in Norway. The introductory questions are asked by an interviewer, from 1997 over the phone, earlier in the home of the respondent, while the major part is included in a self completion questionnaire. The samples are representative for the population aged 15 and above (from 1997 simple random sampling from telephone directories has been used, earlier two-stage cluster sampling).

The Monitor study maps value preferences of the Norwegian population. By this is meant their conceptions of basic goals and means to achieve them. To measure value preferences, 70 questions, mostly with an agree-disagree format, are used to construct 25 additive value indexes (Hellevik 1996). Each index contains items worded in opposite directions, to control for “yes-saying” tendencies, which for some questions are quite strong (Hellevik 1995). The index positions the respondent on a scale of opposite value poles, e.g. between concern for the environment or economic growth. A factor analysis of the indexes yields three value dimensions with a clear substantial interpretation.[1]

VALUE DIMENSIONS: OVERLAPPING DESCRIPTIONS

The dimension which best captures differences in value orientation, as measured by the Monitor value indexes, contrasts those who are positive to technological innovations, new social mores such as gender equality, risk taking, spontaneity, urban life, to those who believe in established traditions, religion, authority, conformity, frugality, respect for law and order. The terms modern versus traditional value orientation or change oriented versus stability oriented have been used to characterise the first value dimension (Hellevik 1993).

The second dimension has been called materialistic versus idealistic value orientation, or outer versus inner oriented. On one side we find people who value economic growth, material possessions and consumption, immediate and conspicuous, and who put their own needs above concern for others. On the other side spirituality, inner feelings, creativity, close interpersonal relations, health and concern for the environment is valued.

The two value dimensions are independent (orthogonal). They define a two-dimensional cultural space as shown in Figure 1, where persons with a modern value orientation are located at the top and traditionalists at the bottom of the vertical axis, and materialists to the left and idealists to the right on the horizontal axis. When the cultural typologi of Ronald Inglehart (1977, 1990) is entered into this cultural space, the average for postmaterialists falls in the upper right quadrant of modern idealists, while his materialists are located in the lower left quadrant of traditional materialists (Hellevik 1993).[2] The materialist-postmaterialist dimension of Inglehart thus corresponds to the main diagonal of the Monitor axes.

Figure 1. Dimensions of value orientation as discussed by Inglehart, Flanagan and Hellevik

Inglehart

/ Libertarian
Flanagan / Modern
Hellevik / Change oriented
Postmaterialism
Weak moral / Weak social
constraints / constraints
Modern materialism / Modern idealism
Materialism / Non-Materialism
Materialist / Idealist
Outer-directed / Inner-directed
Materialism
Strong social / Strong moral
constraints / constraints
Traditional material. / Traditional idealism
Authoritarian
Traditional
Stability oriented

Scott Flanagan, a persistent critic of Inglehart, has proposed two alternative dimensions, called authoritarian-libertarian and materialism-non materialism (1982a). The different operationalizations of these dimensions have not been included in the Monitor surveys. It can be argued, however, on the basis of a comparison of the content of the indicators used in the two analyses, that his dimensions are highly similar to the Monitor axes (Hellevik 1993).

Flanagan also describes what he calls two sub-dimensions of the authoritarian-libertarian dimension, strong versus weak social and moral constraints on the self-actualisation of the members of a society (1982a). The first, where authority and conformity are opposed to autonomy and independence, clearly corresponds to the main diagonal of Monitor and Inglehart’s materialism-postmaterialism dimension. The second corresponds to the bidiagonal, with, in Flanagan’s words, austerity, piety and self-discipline in the lower right corner and self-indulgence, secularism and permissiveness in the upper left.

One may thus conclude that there seems to be a high degree of correspondence between these descriptions of basic value dimensions in post-industrial societies. They constitute axes and diagonals in the same cultural space (Hellevik 1993).

VALUE CHANGE

What is to be expected when we look at changes in value preferences in the Norwegian population from 1985 to 1999? According to Inglehart, feelings of economic security or insecurity are of critical importance. The period is characterised by a strong economic upswing, except for a temporary setback in 1989. From 1986 to 1998 the growth in disposable income for Norwegian households was 23 percent (Barstad 2001). Increasing prosperity affects how the individual experiences the economic situation of the family during adolescence. Moving from early to recent birth cohorts, there is a steady decline in the percentage saying that the economy of the family was difficult, while an increasing percentage experienced a situation free from economic worries. Among those born before 1940, 33 percent give the first and 7 percent the last answer, changing to 13 versus 34 percent for those born in 1970 or later.

According to Inglehart, increasing prosperity should produce a shift for the population as a whole along the main diagonal, with a growing number of postmaterialists and a declining number of materialists. This would be a result of an increasing feeling of economic security during the formative years of the new cohorts entering the adult population. Inglehart also expects a period effect, a postmaterialist trend within all age groups, due to the rising prosperity (Inglehart 1990, ch. 2).

Flanagan’s discussion suggests a movement along the vertical axis of Figure 1, from traditional to modern (or, in his terms, authoritarian to libertarian) values, as the growing economic surplus of society permits a relaxation of constraints on the preferences and activities of its members. Since age according to him is unrelated to the horizontal axis, the materialism dimension is less interesting in the context of cultural change (Flanagan 1982b).

Figure 2 shows the actual changes within the two-dimensional cultural space for the adult Norwegian population. The earlier Monitor studies are projected into the factor solutions of the 1999 sample, and population averages calculated.

The movement from 1985 to 1987 follows the main diagonal and thus confirms Inglehart’s expectations. This may have been the last phase of a postmaterialist trend in the post-war period. But then there came a shift of direction. From 1987 to 1993 the movement is primarily along the horizontal axis in a materialist direction, then turning in a more modern direction following the bidiagonal. It may thus seem as if the 68-rebellion against the authorities of society is succeeded by a hedonistic rejection of traditional moral constraints.


Figure 2. Trend for population average on the modern-traditional and materialistic-idealistic dimensions 1985-1999 (shown in 1999 factor solution).

The pattern of value change between 1985 and 1999 in Norway is consequently at odds with the prediction of Inglehart. Even so, it is possible that his assumption of a postmaterialist cohort effect may be empirically tenable. The young may still be more inclined towards postmaterialist values than older age groups and the effect of cohort replacement on value trends work in a postmaterialist direction. This will be the case if there is a materialist period effect, so strong that it outweighs the effect of cohort replacement.

To see whether the assumption of a more postmaterialist value orientation among the new cohorts is supported by the data, we shall start by looking at the relationship between age and value orientation in Norway during this period.

AGE DIFFERENCES IN VALUE ORIENTATION

Table 1 shows the mean score and percentage distribution of members of different age groups on the Monitor value axes and diagonals shown in Figure 1.[3] The age difference in decile score[4] is large with regard to the modern-traditional dimension and more modest for the materialist-idealist dimension, with the young as the more modern and materialist oriented. There is a clear tendency for the young to score higher on the main diagonal than older people, as predicted by Inglehart, but the age difference is much more pronounced along the bidiagonal.

Table 1. Age differences in value orientation (1985-99 Monitor studies combined)

Average decile score / 15-19 / 20-24 / 25-29 / 30-39 / 40-49 / 50-59 / 60-69 / 70- / Max dif.
Dimension 1 / Modern / 7,9 / 7,7 / 7,1 / 6,4 / 5,6 / 4,5 / 3,4 / 2,8 / 5,1
Dimension 2 / Materialist / 6,0 / 6,3 / 6,1 / 5,7 / 5,4 / 5,2 / 5,1 / 4,7 / 1,6
Main diagonal / Low social constr. / 6,9 / 6,6 / 6,3 / 6,0 / 5,6 / 5,0 / 4,3 / 4,1 / 2,8
Bi diagonal / Low moral constr. / 7,4 / 7,6 / 7,0 / 6,2 / 5,5 / 4,7 / 3,8 / 3,1 / 4,5
Percent in the 3 extreme deciles
Dimension 1 / Modern (8-10) / 63 / 60 / 49 / 38 / 25 / 15 / 6 / 4 / 59
Traditional (1-3) / 3 / 5 / 8 / 14 / 24 / 40 / 60 / 72 / 69
Dimension 2 / Materialist (8-10) / 36 / 42 / 37 / 32 / 29 / 27 / 25 / 19 / 23
Idealist (1-3) / 23 / 20 / 22 / 28 / 31 / 34 / 35 / 40 / 20
Main diagonal / Modern-idealist / 48 / 43 / 39 / 36 / 31 / 24 / 16 / 12 / 36
(Social restraints) / Traditional-mat. / 12 / 17 / 19 / 23 / 28 / 35 / 47 / 49 / 37
Bi diagonal / Modern-material. / 58 / 61 / 51 / 37 / 25 / 16 / 8 / 5 / 56
(Moral restraints) / Traditional-ideal. / 9 / 8 / 12 / 18 / 26 / 39 / 52 / 65 / 57
(N) / 2023 / 2521 / 3108 / 6064 / 4428 / 3069 / 2350 / 1754

To appreciate the size of the age differences, we may compare them to the distances in value orientation between other social groups. This is done in Figure 3 by means of average position for members of various groups in the two-dimensional cultural space. The social background variables have all (except, of course, gender) been trichotomized into groups of approximately the same size, to make results more comparable. The distance between age groups exceeds by far that of other variables, with education and income coming closest.[5] Also the gender difference is substantial, considering that this is a dichotomy. For the groups showing occupational, regional or urban-rural divisions, the cultural distances are surprisingly small.

Figure 3. Bivariate relationships between age, gender, region, urban-rural, education, occupation, income and value orientation (1995-99 Monitor studies combined)


One may thus conclude that in Norway at the end of the twentieth century, cultural differences to a higher degree are age related than based on class or place of residence. The tendency is very strong for the young to be more oriented towards modern (libertarian) values. But this is more pronounced with regard to the kind of modernity found along the moral constraints diagonal, characterised by permissiveness and self-indulgence, than with regard to anti-authoritarian and non-conformist or postmaterialist values found along the social constraints diagonal.

The importance of these large age differences for cultural change in a society depends on their nature, whether they are the result of life cycle or cohort effects.

LIFE CYCLE OR COHORT EFFECT?

Why are the values of older people different from those of the young? One explanation is that the many changes individuals experience during their life course, such as physical and mental ageing and changes in social roles, produce a pattern of value changes common to all. Old people of today had different values when they started out, similar to those of today’s young, and they in turn will change preferences so that they end up where the old are today. This is the life cycle effect perspective on why we have age differences in value orientation.