work values and beliefs of 'generation x' and …€¦ · web viewharvey j. krahn &...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 19 March 2014, At: 09:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Youth StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20

Work values and beliefs of ‘Generation X’ and ‘Generation Y’

Harvey J. Krahna & Nancy L. Galambosb

a Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB,Canada

b Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Published online: 16 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Harvey J. Krahn & Nancy L. Galambos (2014) Work values and beliefs of ‘Generation X’ and ‘Generation Y’, Journal of Youth Studies, 17:1, 92-112, DOI:10.1080/13676261.2013.815701To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2013.815701

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms and-conditions

Journal of Youth Studies, 2014Vol. 17, No. 1, 92112, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2013.815701

Work values and beliefs of ‘Generation X’ and ‘Generation Y’Harvey J. Krahna* and Nancy L. Galambosb

a b

Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

(Received 30 October 2012; final version received 15 May 2013)

This study examined cohort differences and intraindividual change in the intrinsic and extrinsic work values and job entitlement beliefs of Canadian high school seniors (classes of 1985 and 1996, representing ‘Generation X’ and ‘Generation Y’, respectively) surveyed at age 18 and again at age 25. The 1996 cohort placed more value on extrinsic work rewards (at age 25) and reported stronger job entitlement beliefs. Intrinsic work values increased in both cohorts during early adulthood, whereas extrinsic work values increased only in the 1996 cohort. Job entitlement beliefs decreased on average but less so in the 1996 cohort and in women. Predictors of intraindividual change depended on the outcome but included gender, academic experiences at age 18 (grades and post-secondary aspirations), post-high school labour market (unemployment) and educational experiences (obtaining a university degree), and adult statuses at age 25 (full-time worker, parent).

Keywords: generation; attitudes; young adulthood

IntroductionMedia and popularised social science accounts of how work values and beliefs of young adults today differ from those of previous generations appear frequently, despite a scarcity of well-constructed cohort-comparison studies (Twenge et al. 2010). Such conclusions about social change are often based on cross-sectional studies in which differences in values and beliefs across age groups are taken as evidence of cohort or generational differences. However, cross-sectional designs confound cohort or generational effects with age differences (Schaie and Caskie 2005), an important concern, given evidence of considerable intraindividual change in work values as teenagers become young adults, acquire further education, gain labour market experience, and move into adult roles (Johnson 2001a, 2001b; Johnson and Elder 2002).

Time-lag studies comparing samples of young people of the same age surveyed in different decades are an improvement for drawing conclusions about cohort differences, but better still is the use of a longitudinal sequential design involving two or more longitudinal studies with two or more cohorts (Schaie and Caskie 2005). The current study uses a longitudinal sequence design to compare work values and beliefs at ages 18

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 09:39 19 March 2014

Journal of Youth Studies 93and 25 in two cohorts of young Canadians who completed high school a decade apart. The graduating ‘class of 1985’ can be seen as an exemplar of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

‘Generation X’ as described by many in the media and popular social science (e.g. Coupland 1991; Halstead 1999), while the ‘class of 1996’ could perhaps be characterised as representative of ‘Generation Y’, a cohort with supposedly different attitudes and behaviours according to similar commentators (e.g. Howe and Strauss 2000; Montana and Lenaghan 1999; Schneider and Stevenson 1999).

Longitudinal research has demonstrated that young people’s work values, the perceived importance of various job characteristics, help shape their career choices and outcomes (Johnson and Mortimer 2011), and also influence later marital status and parenthood (Johnson 2005). The same body of research reveals that work values change substantially as young people complete their educations (Johnson and Elder 2002), experience the labour market (Johnson and Monserud 2010), and take on new roles (Jin and Rounds 2012). Previous research has shown that intrinsic and extrinsic work values (preferences for interesting work with opportunities to use skills and make decisions, or for material rewards like pay, benefits and job security, respectively) tend to have dissimilar origins and outcomes (Johnson et al. 2007; Johnson and Mortimer 2011). Hence, in this comparison of two cohorts of youth, we also focus on both intrinsic and extrinsic work values. We also examine job entitlement (i.e. the belief that hard work in school entitles one to a good job), a subject that has received very little research attention despite many media and popular social science accounts of how young people today apparently expect and demand more than did their counterparts in the past.

More difficult labour market conditions and rising levels of post-secondary enrollment figure prominently in a number of generational change narratives (e.g. Arnett 2000; Coupland 1991). Hence, we focus explicitly on young people’s labour market and post-secondary experiences in our analyses of how work values change from ages 18 to 25 and how they differ across cohorts. Previous research has highlighted how gender, family socioeconomic status (SES), high school performance, and transitions into adult roles (e.g. marriage, parenthood) shape the work values of adolescents, so we also incorporate these factors into our analyses. Thus, our two-cohort study is shaped by a life course perspective (Elder 1994; Mayer 2009) that takes into account the ongoing interplay among social origins, social and cultural contexts, and individual experiences and agency during the early adult years. When modelling the effects of labour market experiences and educational attainment on change in work values and beliefs, we also rely on value reinforcement theory (Johnson 2001a), which predicts that people bring their values into alignment with their current (or anticipated) work rewards.

Work values: cohort/generational differences?

Karl Mannheim ([1927] 1952) argued that a series of adjacent birth cohorts could be called a ‘generation’ if, during the formative years (childhood and adolescence), they encountered sufficiently large-scale social and economic change (i.e. ‘dynamic destabilization’) to develop a shared understanding of their cohorts’ common destiny. More recently, Eyerman and Turner (1998) defined a generation as birth cohorts with a collective memory emerging from a highly unique shared ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu 1990) and


culture. Thus, from this theoretical perspective, generations are not simply 25 year sets of birth cohorts (i.e. children, parents, grandparents). Nor should we assign a generational label to a set of adjacent birth cohorts on the basis of

Journal of Youth Studies 95

relatively small attitudinal or behavioural differences. In contrast, as an example, the ‘children of the Great Depression’ (Elder 1974) would be considered a unique generation.

Given rapid economic growth, expanding educational opportunities, widespread upward social mobility, and significant cultural change in western societies in the post-war decades, ‘baby boomers’ (about 20 very large cohorts born between 1946 and 1965) are also often considered a generation (Foot and Stoffman 2001; Owram 1996). As our review below of economic and social change in the 1970s and 1980s suggests, the post baby-boom cohorts might warrant a label like Generation X. We also note below that some commentators refer to children born in the 80s and 90s as Generation Y, although it is not clear to us that this set of birth cohorts is, in fact, a unique generation. Because the Generation X and Y labels are ubiquitous, however, we use them to identify the two cohorts we examine in this paper the graduating classes of 1985 and 1996.

Generation XMajor recessions at the beginning of both the 1980s and the 1990s led to several extended periods of very high youth unemployment in Canada, the US, and Western Europe. Both decades were characterised by industrial restructuring, organisational downsizing, contractions in government hiring, and rising rates of part-time and temporary employment, all of which particularly affected youth. Despite their growing participation in post-secondary education, transitions from school to work for the post-baby boomers became more complex, prolonged, and difficult (Andres and Wyn 2010; Krahn, Howard, and Galambos 2012; Furlong and Cartmel 1997; Marquardt 1998; Shanahan 2000). Some media commentators called the 1966 to 1980 birth cohorts the ‘lost’ or ‘scarred’ generation. The label that stuck Generation X came from a best-selling novel (Coupland 1991).

The mismatch between high career expectations (based on their parents’ success) and limited labour market opportunities for Generation X could certainly have led to lower work commitment and to more value placed on extrinsic rather than intrinsic work rewards (the scenario painted by Coupland and most media accounts). Barnard, Cosgrave, and Welsh (1998, 199) reached a different conclusion, claiming that this generation is not at all disaffected, even though its members are less committed to traditional institutions. In fact, ‘...what they want most from work [is] challenge, collaboration, task variety, and greater impact’. In short, according to this popularised social science account, members of Generation X appear to be primarily intrinsically, not extrinsically, motivated. A recent meta-analysis of longitudinal studies of intraindividual change in work values does not directly address this issue, but concludes that, compared to Baby Boomers, Generation X exhibited lower rankorder stability in work values during early adulthood (Jin and Rounds 2012).

Generation YYouth unemployment rates were not as high in the late 1990s and early 2000s as they were in the two previous decades, but industrial restructuring and corporate and government downsizing continued, as did growth in part-time and temporary, often low-


96 H.J. Krahn and N.L. Galambos

skill jobs (Kalleberg 2009; Vosko 2005). Even more than the Generation X cohorts, birth cohorts of the 1980s and 1990s bought into the belief that postsecondary education was required for labour market success (Reynolds et al. 2006; Schneider and Stevenson 1999). Hence, post-secondary enrollments continued to rise in both the US and Canada (Davies and Guppy 2006; Goldrick-Rab 2006), even though opportunities for the rewarding jobs young people hoped to obtain did not expand accordingly.

Some observers were concerned about the long-term societal effects of large numbers of youth whose high ambitions were not aligned with reality and who frequently chose educational pathways unlikely to lead to satisfactory adult employment (Reynolds et al. 2006; Schneider and Stevenson 1999). While a recent US study (Reynolds and Baird 2010) suggests that unmet post-secondary educational aspirations may not have the negative mental health consequences some predicted, a Norwegian study does show negative mental health effects of unmet occupational aspirations (Gjerustad and van Soest 2012). Other commentators have described high school and college students demanding and feeling entitled to immediate rewards, while failing to work hard to obtain them (Coates and Morrison 2011, 112114; Twenge 2006). These two lines of argument suggest that members of more recent birth cohorts (Generation Y) might believe more strongly than members of Generation X that if they have worked hard in school they should be entitled to a good job.

Howe and Strauss (2000) describe teenagers in the late 1990s as highly motivated, eager to work in teams, and socially concerned. Yet they say little about specific work values beyond observing that jobs with fringe benefits and opportunities for promotion are most desired. This sounds like Generation Y is more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated. However, Bibby, Russell, and Rolheiser (2009, 196) present 2008 data showing that three-quarters or more of Canadian teenagers agreed that finding a job with interesting work and that provided a feeling of accomplishment (intrinsic work values) was very important. Fewer (about two-thirds) agreed that jobs that paid well and offered chances for advancement (extrinsic work values) were very important. In other words, they were somewhat more intrinsically motivated. In contrast to both accounts, Twenge’s (2006) assessment is much less positive and optimistic, characterising this generation as having very high expectations and a strong sense of entitlement.

Time-lag studies of cohort differences in work valuesDiffering opinions about the work values of Generation X and Generation Y can be investigated through time-lag studies that directly compare cohorts/generations. Twenge et al. (2010) used data collected from US high school seniors in 1976, 1991, and 2006 to compare the work values of Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Me (Twenge’s label for Generation Y). Generation Me reported marginally lower intrinsic work values than did both Generation X and the Baby Boomers. Generation X placed the most emphasis on the material rewards of work (extrinsic work values), followed by Generation Me and, then, the Baby Boom generation. In short, few generational differences were observed in intrinsic work values, but higher extrinsic work values were found in Generation X.

Although they did not explicitly compare ‘generations’, Wray-Lake et al. (2011) examined the work values of 30 cohorts (19762005) of US high school seniors, using



annual Monitoring the Future survey data. Compared to high school seniors of the 1980s, more recent cohorts (the 1990s and early 2000s) placed less value on job security, and somewhat less emphasis on other extrinsic work rewards (i.e. pay, promotions, status). Intrinsic work values also tended to be lower in more recent cohorts. Thus, Wray-Lake et al.’s (2011) findings suggest higher intrinsic and extrinsic work values in Generation X compared to Generation Y.

Turning to Canadian data, Bibby, Russell, and Rolheiser (2009) reported that similar proportions of teenagers in 1984 and 2008 agreed on the importance of work that was interesting, provided a feeling of accomplishment, offered chances for advancement, and paid well. However, 50% of the 2008 cohort, compared to only 32% of the 1984 cohort, agreed that decision-making opportunities were very important. In short, the general findings from these three time-lag studies do not lead to a clear conclusion about differences between Generation X and Y in extrinsic and intrinsic work values.

Lowe and Krahn (2000) compared the work aspirations and attitudes of two cohorts of Canadian high school seniors (classes of 1985 and 1996). They found little evidence of cohort differences in work values and beliefs, but speculated that larger differences might be found if the same participants were surveyed after they acquired experience in the post-secondary educational system and the labour market. The current paper responds to that suggestion by examining work values and job entitlement beliefs of members of these same two cohorts at both ages 18 and 25. Below, we review research that shows the importance of taking intraindividual change in work values during early adulthood into account when comparing ‘generations’.

Work values: intraindividual change

Using longitudinal data from five sequential cohorts (197680) of high school seniors surveyed in the University of Michigan’s annual Monitoring the Future survey, Johnson (2001a) explored how work values shifted in the decade after high school, between ages 18 and 3132. She concluded that ‘job values change substantially during the young adult years’ (311) but that they tend to stabilise with age. In general, extrinsic work values declined considerably, but intrinsic values changed relatively little. Two other longitudinal studies examining change between ages 18 and 22, one Dutch (Van Der Velde, Feij, and van Emmerik 1998) and the other American (Cotton, Bynum, and Madhere 1997), also showed extrinsic work values declining with age. Intrinsic work values showed an increase, but only in middle-class youth in the US study. A recent meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (Jin and Rounds 2012) revealed considerable instability in work values during early adulthood, but did not show significant changes in either intrinsic or extrinsic work values between ages 18 and 22 and between ages 22 and 26. Thus, beyond agreement that work values change during the post-high school years, there is no consensus about the direction of change in intrinsic and extrinsic work values.

Work values of young adults: gender, family, educational, and occupational influencesEarly studies of gender differences in the work values of youth emphasised men’s preference for jobs offering extrinsic rewards in contrast to jobs with social and altruistic rewards typically preferred by women (e.g. Bridges 1989; Lyson 1984).



Since then the occupational aspirations of young women rose (Andres et al. 1999; Shu and Marini 1998) as did their post-secondary enrollments (Cho 2007; Jacobs 1996). Consequently, gender differences in work values have also changed. A study of US high school seniors graduating between 1976 and 1980 showed higher extrinsic work values among men and higher intrinsic, social, and altruistic work values among women (Johnson 2001a, 2002). In the mid-1990s, young women appeared to be more intrinsically oriented than young men, but there was no gender difference in extrinsic work values (Johnson and Mortimer 2011). Johnson (2001a) observed few gender differences in intraindividual change in work values in early adulthood. Johnson (2001b) also concluded that, to the extent they existed, gender differences in value change were likely the result of the types of jobs women held.

Researchers working in the status attainment tradition have shown how social origins, in particular family SES, affect the educational and occupational aspirations of adolescents, leading to educational choices and career outcomes that reproduce patterns of social inequality (e.g. Looker and Pineo 1983; Sewell, Haller, and Portes 1969). A parallel body of research has demonstrated how family SES shapes adolescents’ work values. Lindsay and Knox (1984) reported higher intrinsic and lower extrinsic work values among US high school seniors (1972) from higher SES families. Johnson (2002) observed similar results for 197680 high school seniors lower extrinsic work values among 18-year-olds from higher SES families, but greater value placed on jobs that allowed decision-making (i.e. intrinsic work values). She also observed that high school seniors in academic programmes and those with higher grades were more interested in jobs that would allow them to make decisions, and less interested in jobs that offered employment security. In a more recent cohort (1991 high school seniors), Johnson and Mortimer (2011) observed that youth from more advantaged families reported lower extrinsic work values (at age 2122).

Johnson (2002) reported that family SES did not affect trajectories of work value change through the 20s, even though SES was related to baseline (age 18) work values. School and work experiences ‘played only small roles’ in shaping trajectories (1330). In a paper using the same data but covering a shorter period (age 18 to 26), Johnson and Elder (2002) highlighted a selection effect young people who eventually obtained post-secondary credentials were already different at age 18, valuing influence at work (an aspect of intrinsic work values) more highly and placing lower value on job security (an aspect of extrinsic work values). Participation in the post-secondary system enhanced initial differences in work values, as value reinforcement theory would predict. Johnson (2001a) also reported that the intrinsic work values of 32-year-olds were reinforced by jobs with greater intrinsic rewards, an outcome predicted by value reinforcement theory. However, the same effect was not observed for extrinsic work values and rewards.

Analyzing data from the Minnesota Youth Development Study, Johnson (2005) showed that young people with higher extrinsic work values were more likely to be married at age 18 and parents by age 2627. The opposite was the case for intrinsic work values at age 18. She also reported that marriage led to reduced value placed on intrinsic rewards by women and men, and on extrinsic rewards by women. For men, parenthood led to greater value placed on extrinsic word rewards. In combination, these studies strongly suggest that studies of differences in work values across cohorts/generations should consider not only how gender, family SES, and post-high school employment and



educational experiences can influence work values and change in work values during early adulthood, but also how movement into adult statuses (e.g. marriage, parenthood) may play a role.

Research questionsPopularised social science accounts of generational differences in young people’s values and behaviours, as well as the few time-lag studies that have systematically examined cohort differences in work values, are inconsistent in their conclusions. This lack of consensus may result from a focus primarily on teenagers, despite the strong evidence of considerable intraindividual change in work values in the posthigh school years. Consequently, although we do not put forward directional hypotheses, our primary research question asks whether members of the class of 1985 (Generation X) or the class of 1996 (Generation Y) report stronger or weaker (intrinsic and extrinsic) work values and job entitlement beliefs, taking into account change between ages 18 and 25 within each cohort.

Previous research has shown that gender and family SES shape the work values of North American teenagers. It also demonstrates that employment and educational experiences during early adulthood can lead to adjustments in young people’s work values, as can marriage and parenthood. Again, the findings are not sufficiently consistent with respect to both predictors and direction of change to allow specific hypotheses. Hence, our second and third research questions ask about the extent and direction of intraindividual change in work values and beliefs between ages 18 and 25 forbothcohorts,andaboutkeypredictorsofsuchchangeforeachcohort,respectively.

Sampling and measurement The class of 1985In the spring of 1985, 983 high school seniors in both academic and career-focused classes in six public high schools in Edmonton, Alberta (the provincial capital, with a metropolitan population close to one million) completed questionnaires in class. More than 90% provided contact information for planned follow-up surveys. Mail surveys were completed in 1986, 1987, 1989, and 1992, with each successive followup attempting to contact only those who had participated in the previous survey. By 1992, the cumulative response rate was 41% (n404). Male sample members, those with less educated parents, and participants who had been less successful in high school were more likely to have dropped out of the study by 1992. Further information about this sample is reported elsewhere (Galambos, Barker, and Krahn 2006). As the second cohort (the Class of 1996) was only surveyed twice, at ages 18 and 25, only the 1985 and 1992 data from the first cohort (the Class of 1985) are analyzed in this paper.

The class of 1996In spring of 1996, 747 high school seniors in eight Edmonton public high schools (five of the schools included in the 1985 study and three others, added to supplement the sample) completed very similar questionnaires in class. Reflecting growing public reluctance to



participate in surveys (Curtin, Presser, and Singer 2005; Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2008), only 73% of this second cohort provided contact information. In 2003, a telephone follow-up survey resulted in completed interviews with 308 of the original study participants, now age 25 (41% of the total 1996 sample). Older high school graduates, immigrants, members of visible minority groups, and disabled graduates were less likely to participate in the 2003 follow-up (Krahn and Hudson 2006).

1992 and 2003 sample characteristicsOver half (56%) of participants in both cohorts were women (Table 1). Similar proportions of the Class of 1985 (15%) and the Class of 1996 (18%) were non-White. About three-quarters of both cohorts (71% and 78%, respectively) were enrolled in academic programmes, but some grade inflation may have taken place, since 29% of the second cohort, compared to only 12% of the first, reported Grade 12 grades as 80% or higher. Twenty-eight per cent of the Class of 1985 had at least one parent who had completed a university degree, compared to 39% of the second cohort. At age 18, only 19% of the first cohort aspired to five or more years of post-secondary education, in sharp contrast to 57% of the Class of 1996.1 By age 25, 32% of the Class of 1985 had acquired a university degree, compared to 37% of the Class of 1996. Thus, at least by age 25, the remarkably high educational aspirations of the second cohort had not been met.

Table 1. Sample characteristics at age 25, Class of 1985 and Class of 1996.Class of 1985 (n403) Class of 1996 (n308)

Gender: % female 56% 56%

Race, % non-White 15% 18%SES: % with at least one parent with

university degree*28% 39%

HS programme: % academic* 71% 78%Grades in final year of high schools: # B60%12% B65%29%

60% 79%76% 65% 79%52%

80% 12% 80%19%

Post-secondary aspirations at age 18:* High school only6% 1%1 2 years47% 14%

3 4 years28% 28%

5years19% 57%

Months unemployed between age 18 and age 25 (average)*

5.9 months 3.7 months

College diploma by age 25* 36% 28%University degree by age 25 32% 37%Employed at age 25 (any job) 89% 87%



Full-time job at age 25 (% of all employed) 87% 87%Managerial/professional job (% of all

employed)*43% 32%

*pB0.05 for cohort difference: Chi-square test for%s; t-test for means.# Significance test not calculated, given different categories for the Class of 1985 and the Class of 1996.

The Class of 1985 experienced more unemployment during the seven years after leaving high school. However, at age 25, equal proportions of both cohorts worked full-time (30 hour per week or more). Members of the Class of 1985 were more likely to have obtained a managerial or professional job by age 25 (43% compared to 32% of the Class of 1996).

Almost one-third (31%) of the Class of 1996 was still enrolled in some kind of educational programme (frequently part-time) at age 25, compared to only 11% of the earlier cohort. Along with this tendency to stay in school longer, researchers have documented delayed transitions into other traditional markers of ‘adulthood’ such as full-time employment, home ownership, marriage/cohabitation and parenthood (e.g. Arnett 2004; Mitchell 2006; Shanahan 2000). Reflecting such trends, only 25% of the second cohort was married or cohabiting at age 25, compared to 42% of the Class of 1985. Similar proportions of both cohorts were parents by age 25.

Measurement of dependent variablesTwo of our dependent variable measures are modifications of questions asked of a national sample of Canadian adults in 1973 (Burstein et al. 1975). Using a five-point scale (1not important at all; 5very important), participants were asked at ages 18 and 25 how important three intrinsic (feeling of accomplishment, make most decisions yourself, interesting work) and three extrinsic (pays well, little chance of being laid off, good chances for promotion) work rewards would be, if they were looking for a full-time job. Inter-item reliability was reasonable for the three-item indices created from responses to these six questions, for the Class of 1985 at age 18 (Intrinsic Alpha0.56; Extrinsic Alpha0.60) and age 25 (0.64 and 0.53, respectively) and for the Class of 1996 at age 18 (Intrinsic Alpha0.66; Extrinsic Alpha0.61) and age 25 (0.51 and 0.63).

Our third dependent variable is a two-item index of beliefs about job entitlement, a labour market focused version of the general psychological concept of ‘entitlement’ (Harvey and Martinko 2009). Job entitlement would be considered a nonexploitative (i.e. based on perceptions of fairness) rather than an exploitative (i.e. based on a desire for special treatment) form of entitlement (Lessard et al. 2011). Members of both cohorts were asked to respond on a five-point scale (1strongly disagree; 5strongly agree) to two statements: ‘If someone has worked hard in school, they are entitled to a good job;’ and ‘Everyone has the right to the kind of job that their education and training has prepared them for’. Both statements are modifications of questions included in Derber’s (1978) study of ‘unemployment and the entitled worker’. Again, inter-item reliability was satisfactory, for the Class of 1985 at age 18 (Alpha0.59) and age 25 (0.76) and for the Class of 1996 at age 18 (0.60) and age 25 (0.57).



Results Cohort, gender, and age differences in work values and beliefsAt age 18, both cohorts placed high value on intrinsic and extrinsic work rewards (average scores greater than 4 on a 15 scale). They also typically agreed (average scores of almost 4 on a 15 scale) that young people who work hard in school are entitled to a good job. To explore how work values and beliefs changed between ages 18 and 25 as a function of cohort and gender, we conducted a 222 (age cohortgender) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with age the within-subjects factor for each dependent variable. All two- and three-way interactions were tested.

The ANOVA for intrinsic work values revealed a significant age effect, F (1, 706) 38.50, pB.001, with intrinsic work values increasing between ages 18 and age 25 (Figure 1). The absence of significant two- or three-way interactions indicated similar increases for both cohorts and for women and men. The only other significant effect was for gender, F (1, 706)9.95, p B.01; women scored higher than men on intrinsic work values (averaged across age and cohort).

The ANOVA for extrinsic work values (Figure 2) showed a different pattern. There was no significant effect of age, nor of gender, but there was a significant between-subjects effect of cohort, F (1, 704)11.31, pB.01, indicating that the value placed on extrinsic work rewards, averaged across both ages and genders, was higher in the 1996 than the 1985 cohort. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between cohort and age, F (1, 704)4.78, pB.05. Figure 2 shows an increase between ages 18 and 25 in extrinsic work values in the 1996 cohort but not in the 1985 cohort.

The results for job entitlement were more complicated (Figure 3). A significant effect of age indicated a drop in job entitlement by age 25, F (1, 700)93.72, pB.001. There was also a significant cohort effect, F (1, 700)11.97, pB.01, with the 1996 cohort showing stronger beliefs in job entitlement (averaged across age and gender) relative to the 1985 cohort. And there was a significant gender effect, with women having stronger beliefs in job entitlement (averaged across age and cohort) than did men, F (1, 700)34.57, pB.001. Additionally, a two-way interaction between age and cohort, F (1, 700)5.86, pB.05, revealed a more dramatic decrease in job entitlement for the 1985 than the 1996 cohort. Finally, a two-way interaction between age and gender, F (1, 700)8.16, pB.01, indicated that beliefs in job entitlement decreased more dramatically for men compared to women.

Figure 1. Intrinsic work values, ages 18 and 25, by cohort.



Figure 2. Extrinsic work values, ages 18 and 25, by cohort.

Predictors of intraindividual change in work values and beliefsTable 2 presents bivariate correlation coefficients for all independent and dependent variables. Three hierarchical regression analyses introduced temporally-ordered blocks of variables to examine predictors of intraindividual change from age 18 to 25 in intrinsic work values, extrinsic work values, and job entitlement (Table 3). For each dependent variable, Block 1 contained a single predictor, the age 18 score on the same variable. Thus, our dependent variable essentially represents change in the respective work value or belief (Cohen et al. 2003a). Block 2 introduced three background variables: gender; cohort; and family SES (parents’ education). Academic experiences assessed at age 18 (high school programme, Grade 12 grades, and post-secondary aspirations) were added in Block 3, while Block 4 incorporated labour market and educational experiences in early adulthood (months unemployed between ages 18 and 25, and whether a college diploma or a university degree were obtained by age 25). Block 5 tested the additional contributions of four adult statuses at age 25 (employed full-time, still a student, married or cohabiting, and parenthood). Following convention (Cohen et al. 2003a), we do not flag significant coefficients for individual variables within a block unless the complete block explains a significant amount of variance.

Figure 3. Job entitlement beliefs, ages 18 and 25, by cohort by gender.


Table 2. Intercorrelations among study variables.Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1. Gender 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.16* 0.05 0.14* 0.09* 0.14* 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.13* 0.22*

2. Cohort 0.11* 0.07 0.09* 0.44* 0.13* 0.08* 0.05 0.01 0.25* 0.18* 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.16* 0.05 0.14*

3. Parent(s) education 0.18* 0.15* 0.30* 0.07 0.15* 0.30* 0.03 0.08* 0.07 0.09* 0.09* 0.05 0.08* 0.12* 0.07* 0.07

4. High school programme

0.09* 0.37* 0.12* 0.04 0.27* 0.00 0.08* 0.10* 0.14* 0.06 0.11* 0.02 0.04 0.07* 0.02

5. Grade 12 grades 0.22* 0.06 0.12* 0.38* 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.10* 0.06 0.07 0.09* 0.19* 0.05 0.10*

6. PS asp grade 12 0.12* 0.27* 0.46* 0.02 0.17* 0.13* 0.14* 0.09* 0.16* 0.06 0.09* 0.05 0.10*

7. Months unemployed 0.06 0.12* 0.24* 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.12* 0.08* 0.02 0.00 0.09*

8. College diploma 0.49* 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.10* 0.06 0.00 0.07

9. University degree 0.02 0.04 0.12* 0.22* 0.09* 0.19* 0.03 0.11* 0.06 0.10*

10. Employed at 25 0.19* 0.01 0.14* 0.08* 0.11* 0.02 0.08* 0.01 0.12*

11. Student at 25 0.10* 0.01 0.01 0.08* 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04

12. Married at 25 0.36* 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01

13. Parent at 25 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.12* 0.02 0.07*

14. Intrinsic age 18 0.25* 0.21* 0.13* 0.08* 0.03

15. Intrinsic age 25 0.15* 0.28* 0.06 0.09*

JournalofYouthStudies

103


16. Extrinsic age 18 0.36* 0.19* 0.06

17. Extrinsic age 25 0.15* 0.29*

18. Job Entitleage 18

19. Job Entitleage 25

0.31*

Note: N703710. Gender (female 1); Cohort (1996 1); Parent(s) education (university 1); High school programme (academic 1); PS asp (Post-secondary aspirations; yes 1); Months unemployed (ages 18 25); College diploma by age 25 (yes 1); University degree by age 25 (yes 1); Employed full-time at 25 (yes 1); Student at 25 (yes 1); Married/cohabiting at 25 (yes 1); Parent at 25 (yes 1). *pB0.05.


Intrinsic work values at age 18 accounted for a significant portion of the variance (7%) in the same measure at age 25 (Table 3, column 1), although the relatively small coefficient (b0.25) reflects considerable instability in values in early adulthood. Block 2 predictors did not explain any additional variance, but the Block 3 results showed that higher post-secondary aspirations in Grade 12 were associated with a significant increase in intrinsic work values by age 25 (b0.12). Block 4 added 2% to the explained variance; less unemployment in early adulthood (b0.08) and acquisition of a university degree by age 25 (b0.15) were associated with increased value placed on intrinsic rewards. The set of adult statuses at age 25 in Block 5 did not explain a significant portion of the remaining variance. A total of 12% of the variance in age 25 intrinsic work values was explained by the full set of predictors.2

Compared to intrinsic work values, extrinsic work values at age 18 accounted for a larger proportion of the variance (13%) in the same measure at age 25 (Table 3, column 2), signifying somewhat higher stability across early adulthood. Two of the three background variables in Block 2 had significant effects. The Class of 1996

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses predicting intrinsic and extrinsic work values and job entitlement beliefs at age 25.

Intrinsic Extrinsic EntitlementPredictor DR2 b DR2 b DR2 b

Block 1 0.07* 0.13* 0.10*

Age 18 work value/belief 0.25* 0.36* 0.31*

Block 2 0.00 0.03* 0.05*

Gender (female 1) 0.02 0.01 0.18*

Cohort (1996 1) 0.06 0.15* 0.13*

Parent(s) university educated (yes 1) 0.02 0.11* 0.07

Block 3 0.02* 0.03* 0.02*

High school programme (academic 1) 0.05 0.02 0.02

Grade 12 grades 0.03 0.11* 0.07*

Post-secondary aspirations in grade 12 0.12* 0.12* 0.14*

Block 4 0.02* 0.00 0.01*

Months unemployed ages 1825 0.08* 0.05 0.09*

College diploma by age 25 (yes 1) 0.04 0.02 0.02



University degree by age 25 (yes 1) 0.15* 0.00 0.04

Block 5 0.01 0.02* 0.01

Employed full-time at 25 (yes 1) 0.09 0.10* 0.06

Student at 25 (yes 1) 0.08 0.05 0.02

Married/cohabiting at 25 (yes 1) 0.01 0.01 0.05

Parent at 25 (yes 1) 0.01 0.10* 0.05

Block 6 0.01*

CohortEmployed full-time at 25 0.15

CohortStudent at 25 0.11

CohortMarried/cohabiting at 25 0.12*

CohortParent at 25 0.03

Total R2 0.12* 0.21* 0.20*

N 710 708 704

*pB0.05.placed higher value on extrinsic work rewards at age 25, compared to the 1985 cohort (b0.15). At age 25, participants from higher SES families considered extrinsic work rewards to be less important (b0.11). Employment and education experiences in early adulthood (Block 4) did not explain a significant portion of the variance in age 25 extrinsic work values, but adult statuses (Block 5) did (2%). Specifically, participants who were employed full-time at age 25 (b0.10) and those who were parents at age 25 (b0.10) valued extrinsic work rewards more highly. The full set of predictors explained 21% of the variance in age 25 extrinsic work values.

Job entitlement beliefs at age 18 explained 10% of the variance in the same beliefs at age 25 (column 3). Predictors in Block 2 explained another 5%, revealing that women, more than men (b0.18), and members of the 1996 cohort, compared to the 1985 cohort (b0.13), were more likely to agree at age 25 that working hard in school entitled them to a good job. Another 2% of the variance was explained by Grade 12 predictors; those with higher grades (b0.07) and higher postsecondary aspirations (b0.14) expressed weaker job entitlement beliefs at age 25. Early adult experiences (Block 4) also predicted change in job entitlement beliefs, explaining an additional 1% of variance. Those who were unemployed for more months between ages 18 and 25 (b0.09) had stronger entitlement beliefs by age 25. Block 5 (adult statuses at age 25) did not explain additional variance. Twenty per cent of the variance in job entitlement at age 25 was explained by the full set of predictors.


Tests for interactions with cohortA systematic set of analyses was run to explore whether predictors of change in work values and beliefs differed by cohort. After centring non-dichotomous predictor variables (Cohen et al. 2003a), interaction terms were created as cross-products of cohort with each binary or centred predictor. A gendercohort interaction term was not included, as the previous repeated measures ANOVA revealed no such interaction in explaining work values and beliefs. For each dependent variable, the Block 1 and Block 2 predictors were entered as per the regression analyses reported above. Block 3, however, tested the interaction of parents’ education and cohort. This interaction term was non-significant in each of the three regression analyses, so it was not included in further analyses. Next, the original Block 1, 2, and 3 predictors were entered, with Block 4 testing interactions of cohort with high school programme, Grade 12 grades, and Grade 12 post-secondary aspirations. This set of three interaction terms did not explain a significant portion of variance in any of the three regression equations so, again, the constituent interaction terms were dropped from the analysis.

Interactions between cohort and both the original Block 4 and Block 5 predictors were tested in a similar fashion. These blocks of interaction terms significantly increased the explained variance in only one equation. Specifically, an additional 1% of the variance in age 25 job entitlement beliefs (column 3) was explained by the interaction terms involving cohort and age 25 statuses. Only one interaction in this block was significant; members of the Class of 1996 who were married or cohabiting at age 25 were most likely to agree that working hard in school entitled them to a good job (b0.12). The overall pattern of non-significant interactions suggests that predictors of age 25 intrinsic and extrinsic work values, and job entitlement beliefs, did not differ by cohort.

DiscussionOur primary research question asked whether members of the class of 1985 (Generation X) or the class of 1996 (Generation Y) report stronger or weaker (intrinsic and extrinsic) work values and job entitlement beliefs, taking into account intraindividual change between ages 18 and 25 within each cohort. Our longitudinal sequential study highlighted several significant cohort differences. Compared to the Class of 1985, the Class of 1996 placed increasing value on extrinsic work rewards between ages 18 and 25, reported stronger job entitlement beliefs (averaged across age), and showed less pronounced decline in job entitlement beliefs between ages 18 and 25. The two cohorts did not differ in intrinsic work values. In a time-lag study based on the age 18 data only, Lowe and Krahn (2000) found few cohort differences, and speculated that larger differences might be observed later in the transition to adulthood during which new challenges, opportunities, and experiences are reflected in a diversity of developmental pathways (Arnett 2004; Cohen et al. 2003b). The current study supports the idea that cohort differences may be accentuated as they play out in the several years after high school graduation. Previous time-lag studies (Bibby, Russell, and Rolheiser 2009; Twenge 2010; Wray-Lake et al. 2011) have focused largely on teens or high school seniors, and have not followed their samples into early adulthood, a prime period for intraindividual change in work values.



There are no previous multi-cohort studies to which we can compare our findings of stronger job entitlement beliefs in the Class of 1996 compared to the Class of 1985, but they are generally consistent with Twenge’s (2010) argument that recent cohorts of youth are becoming more entitled. The growing gap between the number of highly-educated youth and the availability of well-paying, high-skill jobs (Reynolds et al. 2006, Schneider and Stevenson 1999) could be responsible for higher job entitlement beliefs in the Class of 1996. Recognising that getting a ‘good job’ was becoming more difficult, even with a university education, the Class of 1996 might also have placed more value on finding work with extrinsic work rewards that earlier cohorts took for granted.

We use the concept ‘cohort’ rather than ‘generation’ in this discussion because our cohort differences in extrinsic work values and job entitlement beliefs were statistically significant but not particularly strong. The only other time-lag study that explicitly contrasted work values across cohorts also found only ‘small to moderate generational differences in work values’ (Twenge 2010, 1133). Because of these small effect sizes, we are confident in reporting cohort differences but reluctant to conclude that they reflect the emergence of truly different generations as defined by Mannheim ([1927] 1952).

Our second research question asked about the extent and direction of intraindividual change in work values and beliefs between ages 18 and 25 for both cohorts. Members of both cohorts reported significantly higher intrinsic work values at age 25 than at age 18. Extrinsic work values also rose significantly during early adulthood for the 1996 cohort. In contrast, job entitlement beliefs declined significantly between ages 18 and 25 in both cohorts. Thus, our study echoes previous findings of intraindividual change in extrinsic work values during the transition to adulthood (Johnson and Elder 2002) and also demonstrates significant change in job entitlement beliefs.

The increase in intrinsic work values between ages 18 and 25 in our study is not consistent, however, with findings of little change between ages 18 and 32 in 197680 US high school graduation cohorts (Johnson and Elder 2002), but parallels Cotton, Bynum, and Madhere (1997) study showing an increase between ages 18 and 22 for middle-class US high school seniors in the mid-1980s. Furthermore, whereas extrinsic work values (including job security) rose by age 25 in our Class of 1996, for the 197680 US cohorts, extrinsic work values (e.g. pay, promotions) declined between ages 18 and 32, while value placed on job security declined and then returned to its earlier level. Cotton, Bynum, and Madhere (1997) also observed a decline in extrinsic work values between ages 18 and 22 in the mid-1980s in their US study.

It is unlikely that these dissimilarities are the result of Canada-US differences, since high school and post-secondary education systems, labour markets, and youth culture are generally quite similar in the two countries. But these inconsistencies may reflect cohort differences, given that Johnson and Elder (2002) focused on 197680 graduates. By the 1980s and particularly the 1990s, much larger proportions of high school graduates were continuing on to post-secondary education, a setting in which intrinsic work values are maintained and enhanced (Johnson and Elder 2002). By 1996, a substantially restructured labour market, characterised by many more parttime and temporary jobs, even for universitygraduates (Kalleberg 2009; Vosko 2005), might have led young adults from the Class of 1996 to place more value on extrinsic rewards by age 25, than when they left high school.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 09:39 19 March 2014 Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 09:39 19 March 2014


Our third research question asked about key predictors of work values and job entitlement beliefs, in addition to cohort membership. Women placed more value on intrinsic work rewards than did men in our study, replicating recent findings by Johnson and Mortimer (2011) and strengthening the conclusion that over the past few decades the career aspirations and work values of young women have shifted dramatically. As well, young women in our study had stronger job entitlement beliefs and these beliefs declined less by age 25 compared to men. Our findings are congruent with other studies showing that young US women had more egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles in the workplace than did young men (Fan and Marini 2000) and the fact that, in Canadian colleges and universities, women vastly outnumber men in health and education professional programmes that lead directly to jobs in teaching, nursing, rehabilitation medicine, and related fields. Specific occupational goals and training in programmes with enrollment quotas tied to labour market demand could lead to stronger job entitlement beliefs.

Compared to gender, family SES was not a prominent predictor. Young people from lower (compared to higher) SES families had stronger extrinsic work values at age 18, and those values strengthened over the next seven years. But family SES was not related to intrinsic work values at age 25. Johnson and Mortimer (2011) reported similar findings, observing that ‘[p]erhaps cultural change emphasising fulfilment at work has made intrinsic job features more universally desirable across classes’ (1252).

Higher grades and post-secondary aspirations at age 18 were related to decreases in extrinsic work values and job entitlement beliefs. Post-secondary aspirations at age 18 also predicted strengthening intrinsic work values by age 25. Although these effects were weak, as a group they indicate the potential impact of young people’s identities as successful students in their senior year of high school on trajectories of work values and job entitlement beliefs. Furthermore, acquisition of a university degree was associated with an increase in intrinsic work values between ages 18 and 25. These findings are generally similar to Johnson and Elder’s (2002) results, and are consistent with value reinforcement theory. Specifically, young people have aspirations and make educational choices that reflect their values, and over time, those values are reinforced by their post-secondary experiences.

Longer periods of unemployment in early adulthood were associated with decreases in intrinsic work values and increasing commitment to job entitlement beliefs by age 25. These are not surprising findings, as young adults encountering labour market difficulties might downscale their employment ambitions (i.e. value placed on intrinsic work rewards), while hanging on to the belief that hard work in school entitled them to a good job. We might also expect them to place more value on extrinsic work rewards (including job security); they did, but the positive coefficient was not significant. What is surprising, in retrospect, is how little the literature on work values of youth has focused on the effects of unemployment, particularly given previous longitudinal research showing negative effects of unemployment on mental health (Dooley, Prause, and Ham-Rowbottom 2000; Schaufeli 1997). Further research on this topic is clearly needed.

With respect to measures of adult statuses, only two had significant net effects, and only for extrinsic work values. Participants who were employed full-time and who were parents by age 25 placed growing value on extrinsic work rewards, as they might be



expected to do as responsible (for children) adults. Value reinforcement theory would predict a socialising effect of taking on full-time work and parenting roles, in which the former leads to extrinsic work rewards and the latter requires them. Although adult role statuses were not consistent predictors of work values and beliefs at age 25, it is important to note that when the adult role statuses were entered into our regression analyses, significant amounts of variance in the outcomes had already been explained. Thus, our tests of the net significance of adult role statuses are conservative.

Finally, our examination of interactions between cohort and all other predictors of work values at age 25 revealed only one significant effect. Participants in the 1996 cohort, who were married or cohabiting held stronger job entitlement beliefs at age 25. Thus, there is little evidence that the predictors of change between ages 18 and 25 differed between our cohorts born eleven years apart.

ConclusionsGuided by a life course perspective, this paper may be the first to systematically examine cohort differences in mean levels of and intraindividual change in work values and job entitlement beliefs in early adulthood. We found significant cohort differences involving extrinsic work values and job entitlement beliefs (but not intrinsic work values) that likely reflect changing labour market conditions and postsecondary enrollment patterns in North America. Unlike the few other studies that have compared work values of youth in different cohorts by focusing only on teenagers or high school seniors, we relied on both ages 18 and 25 data to reach more confident conclusions about differences in the work values and beliefs of ‘the Class of 1985’ and ‘the Class of 1996’. Our results clearly show the importance of recognising that work values change during early adulthood. They also imply that, with increasing age, the differences we observed between cohorts could get larger or smaller.

We began this paper with a discussion of Generation X and Generation Y, employing these labels because of their widespread use in the media and popularised social science. We concluded by discussing cohort differences in work values and job entitlement beliefs. These differences are real, and interesting, but in relative terms they are not large. Nor did we find evidence that predictors of value/belief change between ages 18 and 25 differed across cohorts. Consequently, using Mannheim’s ([1927] 1952) conceptualisation, we are reluctant to conclude that these cohort differences reflect the emergence of a new generation (i.e. Generation Y). This caution might be of particular interest to employers who are frequently informed by the media and popularised social science (e.g. Howe and Strauss 2000; Montana and Lenaghan 1999; Schneider and Stevenson 1999; Twenge et al. 2010) that they must change the way they manage young people, because of their supposedly vastly different work values and beliefs.

AcknowledgementsThis study was funded by grants to the first author by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Alberta Advanced Eduation, and the University of Alberta. Data were collected by the Population Research Laboratory, University of Alberta.



Notes1. The question about years of post-secondary education desired was asked open-ended in1996,

compared to a forced-choice option with five response categories in 1985. The change in wording may be partially responsible for the large cohort difference, although a national survey in 2000 also revealed very high aspirations 61% of 15-year-olds hoped to complete one or more university degrees (Krahn and Taylor 2005).

2. Although the R2 value presented for each of the regression analyses in Table 1 reflect the final equations, following convention (Cohen et al. 2003a) the standardised partial coefficients for each block of variables take into account only the other variables in that and preceding blocks.

ReferencesAndres, Lesley, and Johanna Wyn. 2010. The Making of a Generation: The Children of the 1970s

in Adulthood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Andres, Lesley, Paul Anisef, Harvey Krahn, Dianne Looker, and Victor Thiessen. 1999. ‘‘The

Persistence of Social Structure: Cohort, Class and Gender Effects on the Occupational Aspirations and Expectations of Canadian Youth.’’ Journal of Youth Studies 2 (3): 261282. doi:10.1080/13676261.1999.10593042.

Arnett, Jeffrey J. 2000. ‘‘High Hopes in a Grim World: Emerging Adults’ Views of Their Futures and ‘Generation X’.’’ Youth & Society 31 (3): 267286. doi:10.1177/0044118X0003 1003001.

Arnett, Jeffrey J. 2004. Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens Through the Twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barnard, Robert, Dave Cosgrave, and Jennifer Welsh. 1998. Chips and Pop: Decoding the Nexus Generation. Toronto: Malcolm Lester Books.

Bibby, Reginald, Sarah Russell, and Ron Rolheiser. 2009. The Emerging Millennials: How Canada’s Newest Generation is Responding to Change & Choice. Lethbridge: Project Canada Books.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bridges, Judith S. 1989. ‘‘Sex Differences in Occupational Values.’’ Sex Roles 20 (34): 205211.

doi:10.1007/BF00287992.Burstein, M., N. Tienhaara, P. Hewson, and B. Warrander. 1975. Canadian Work Values: Findings

of a Work Ethic Survey and a Job Satisfaction Survey. Ottawa: Information Canada.Cho, Donghun. 2007. ‘‘The Role of High School Performance in Explaining Women’s Rising

College Enrollment.’’ Economics of Education Review 26 (4): 450462. doi:10.1016/ j.econedurev.2006.03.001.

Coates, Ken S., and Bill Morrison. 2011. Campus Confidential: 100 Startling Things You Don’t Know about Canadian Universities. Toronto: James Lorimer.

Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken. 2003a. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, Patricia, Stephanie Kasen, Henian Chen, Claudia Hartmark, and Kathy Gordon. 2003b. ‘‘Variations in Patterns of Developmental Transitions in the Emerging Adulthood Period.’’ Developmental Psychology 39 (4): 657669. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.657.

Cotton, Lynyonne, Dana R. Bynum, and Serge Madhere. 1997. ‘‘Socialization Forces and the Stability of Work Values from Late Adolescence to Early Adulthood.’’ Psychological Reports 80 (1): 115124. doi:10.2466/pr0.1997.80.1.115.

Coupland, Douglas. 1991. Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Curtin, Richard, Stanley Presser, and Eleanor Singer. 2005. ‘‘Changes in Telephone Survey Non-response Over the Past Quarter Century.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (1): 8798. doi:10.1093/poq/nfi002.

Davies, Scott, and Neil Guppy. 2006. The Schooled Society: An Introduction to the Sociology of Education. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.



Derber, Charles. 1978. ‘‘Unemployment and the Entitled Worker: Job-entitlement and Radical Political Attitudes Among the Youthful Unemployed.’’ Social Problems 26 (1): 2637. doi:10.2307/800430.

Dillman, Don A., Jolene D. Smyth, and Leah M. Christian. 2008. Internet, Mail, and Mixedmode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley.

Dooley, David, Joann Prause, and Kathleen A. Ham-Rowbottom. 2000. ‘‘Underemployment and Depression: Longitudinal Relationships.’’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41 (4): 421436. doi:10.2307/2676295.

Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1974. Children of the Great Depression: Social Change in Life Experience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1994. ‘‘Time, Human Agency, and Social Change: Perspectives on the Life Course.’’ Social Psychological Quarterly 57 (1): 415. doi:10.2307/2786971.

Eyerman, Ron, and Bryan S. Turner. 1998. ‘‘Outline of a Theory of Generations.’’ European Journal of Social Theory 1 (1): 91106. doi:10.1177/136843198001001007.

Fan, Pi-Ling, and Margaret Mooney Marini. 2000. ‘‘Influences on Gender-role Attitudes During the Transition to Adulthood.’’ Social Science Research 29 (2): 258283. doi:10.1006/ ssre.1999.0669.

Foot, David K., and Daniel Stoffman. 2001. Boom, Bust & Echo 2000: Profiting from the Demographic Shift in the 21st Century. Toronto: Stoddard Publishing.

Furlong, Andy, and Fred Cartmel. 1997. Young People and Social Change: Individualization and Risk in Late Modernity. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Galambos, Nancy L., Erin T. Barker, and Harvey J. Krahn. 2006. ‘‘Depression, Self-esteem and Anger in Emerging Adulthood: Seven-year Trajectories.’’ Developmental Psychology 42 (2): 350365. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.350.

Gjerustad, Cay, and Tilmann von Soest. 2012. ‘‘Socio-economic Status and Mental Health The Importance of Achieving Occupational Aspirations.’’ Journal of Youth Studies 15 (7): 890908. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.693590.

Goldrick-Rab, Sara. 2006. ‘‘Following Their Every Move: An Investigation of Social Class Differences in College Pathways.’’ Sociology of Education 79 (1): 6779. doi:10.1177/ 003804070607900104.

Halstead, Ted. 1999. ‘‘A Politics for Generation X.’’ The Atlantic Monthly, August: 3342. Harvey, Paul, and Mark J. Martinko. 2009. ‘‘An Empirical Examination of the Role of Attributions in Psychological Entitlement and Its Outcomes.’’ Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (4): 459476. doi:10.1002/job.549.Howe, Neil, and William Strauss. 2000. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New

York: Vintage Books.Jacobs, Jerry A. 1996. ‘‘Gender Inequality and Higher Education.’’ Annual Review of Sociology

22 (1): 153185. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.153.Jin, Jing, and James Rounds. 2012. ‘‘Stability and Change in Work Values: A Meta-analysis of

Longitudinal Studies.’’ Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2): 326339. doi:10.1016/ j.jvb.2011.10.007.

Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick. 2001a. ‘‘Job Values in the Young Adult Transition: Change and Stability with Age.’’ Social Psychological Quarterly 64 (4): 297317. doi:10.2307/3090156.

Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick. 2001b. ‘‘Changes in Job Values During the Transition to Adulthood.’’ Work and Occupations 28 (3): 315345. doi:10.1177/0730888401028003004.

Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick. 2002. ‘‘Social Origins, Adolescent Experiences, and Work Value Trajectories During the Transition to Adulthood.’’ Social Forces 80 (4): 13071340. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0028.

Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick. 2005. ‘‘Family Roles and Work Values: Processes of Selection and Change.’’ Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 352369. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005. 00121.x.

Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2002. ‘‘Educational Pathways and Work Value Trajectories.’’ Sociological Perspectives 45 (2): 113138. doi:10.1525/sop.2002.45.2. 113.


Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick, and Maria A. Monserud. 2010. ‘‘Judgments About Work and the Features of Young Adults’ Jobs.’’ Work and Occupations 37 (2): 194224. doi:10.1177/ 0730888410365973.

Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick, and Jeylan T. Mortimer. 2011. ‘‘Origins and Outcomes of Judgments About Work.’’ Social Forces 89 (4): 12391260. doi:10.1093/sf/89.4.1239.

Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick, Jeylan T. Mortimer, Jennifer C. Lee, and Michael J. Stern. 2007. ‘‘Judgements About Work: Dimensionality Revisited.’’ Work and Occupations 34 (3): 290317. doi:10.1177/0730888407303182.

Kalleberg, Arne. 2009. ‘‘Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition.’’ American Sociological Review 74 (1): 122. doi:10.1177/000312240907400101.

Krahn, Harvey, and Alison Taylor. 2005. ‘‘Resilient Teenagers: Explaining the High Educational Aspirations of Visible Minority Youth in Canada.’’ Journal of International Migration and Integration, 6 (3/4): 405434.

Krahn, Harvey, and Julie Hudson. 2006. Pathways of Alberta Youth Through the Postsecondary System into the Labour Market, 19962003. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, Pathways to the Labour Market Series.

Krahn, Harvey J., Andrea L. Howard, and Nancy L. Galambos. 2012. ‘‘Exploring or Floundering: The Meaning of Employment and Educational Fluctuations in Emerging Adulthood.’’ Youth & Society, doi:10.1177/0044118X12459061.

Lessard, Jared, Ellen Greenberger, Chuansheng Chen, and Susan Farruggia. 2011. ‘‘Are Youths’ Feelings of Entitlement Always ‘Bad’?: Evidence for a Distinction Between Exploitive and Non-exploitive Dimensions of Entitlement.’’ Journal of Adolescence 34 (3): 521529. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.014.

Lindsay, Paul, and William E. Knox. 1984. ‘‘Continuity and Change in Work Values Among Young Adults: A Longitudinal Study.’’ American Journal of Sociology 89 (4): 918931. doi:10.1086/227950.

Looker, E. Dianne, and Peter C. Pineo. 1983. ‘‘Social Psychological Variables and Their Relevance to the Status Attainment of Teenagers.’’ American Journal of Sociology 88 (6): 11951219. doi:10.1086/227800.

Lowe, Graham S., and Harvey J. Krahn. 2000. ‘‘Work Aspirations and Attitudes in an Era of Labour Market Restructuring: A Comparison of Two Canadian Cohorts.’’ Work, Employment & Society, 14 (1):122. doi:10.1177/09500170022118248.

Lyson, Thomas A. 1984. ‘‘Sex Differences in the Choice of a Male or Female Career Line: An Analysis of Background Characteristics and Work Values.’’ Work and Occupations 11 (2): 131146. doi:10.1177/0730888484011002001.

Mannheim, Karl. [1927] 1952. ‘‘On the Problem of Generations.’’ In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Paul Kecskemeti, 276322. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Marquardt, Richard. 1998. Enter at Your Own Risk: Canadian Youth and the Labour Market. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Mayer, Karl Ulrich. 2009. ‘‘New Directions in Life Course Research.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 35 (1): 413433. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134619.

Mitchell, Barbara A. 2006. The Boomerang Age: Transitions to Adulthood in Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Montana, Patrick J., and Janet A. Lenaghan. 1999. ‘‘What Motivates and Matters Most to Generations X and Y.’’ Journal of Career Planning & Employment 59 (4): 2730.

Owram, Doug. 1996. Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby Boom Generation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Reynolds, John R., and Chardie L. Baird. 2010. ‘‘Is there a Downside to Shooting for the Stars? Unrealized Educational Expectations and Symptoms of Depression.’’ American Sociological Review 75 (1): 151172. doi:10.1177/0003122409357064.

Reynolds, John, Michael Stewart, Ryan Macdonald, and Lacey Sischo. 2006. ‘‘Have Adolescents Become Too Ambitious? High School Seniors’ Educational and Occupational Plans, 1976 to 2000.’’ Social Problems 53 (2): 186206. doi:10.1525/sp.2006.53.2.186.



Schaie, K. Warner, and Grace I. L. Caskie. 2005. ‘‘Methodological Issues in Aging Research.’’ In Handbook of Research Methods in Developmental Science, edited by Douglas M. Teti, 2139. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Schaufeli, Wilmar B. 1997. ‘‘Youth Unemployment and Mental Health: Some DutchFindings.’’ Journal of Adolescence 20 (3): 281292. doi:10.1006/jado.1997.0085.

Schneider, Barbara, and David Stevenson. 1999. The Ambitious Generation: America’s Teenagers, Motivated But Directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sewell, William H., Archibald O. Haller, and Alejandro Portes. 1969. ‘‘The Educational and Early Occupational Attainment Process.’’ American Sociological Review 34 (1): 8292. doi:10.2307/2092789.

Shanahan, Michael J. 2000. ‘‘Pathways to Adulthood in Changing Societies: Variability and Mechanisms in Life Course Perspective.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 667692. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.667.

Shu, Xiaoling, and Margaret Mooney Marini. 1998. ‘‘Gender-related Change in Occupational Aspirations.’’ Sociology of Education 71 (1): 4468. doi:10.2307/2673221.

Twenge, Jean M. 2006. Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable than Ever Before. New York: Free Press.

Twenge, Jean M. 2010. ‘‘A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational Differences in Work Attitudes.’’ Journal of Business and Psychology 25 (2): 201210. doi:10.1007/s10869010-9165-6.

Twenge, Jean M., Stacy M. Campbell, Brian R. Hoffman, and Charles E. Lance. 2010. ‘‘Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Work Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing.’’ Journal of Management 36 (5): 11171142. doi:10.1177/0149206309352246.

van der Velde, Mandy E. G., Jan A. Feij, and Hetty van Emmerik. 1998. ‘‘Change in Work Values and Norms Among Dutch Young Adults: Ageing or Societal Trends?’’ International Journal of Behavioral Development 22 (1): 5576. doi:10.1080/016502598384513.

Vosko, Leah, ed. 2005. Precarious Employment: Understanding Labour Market Insecurity in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wray-Lake, Laura, Amy K. Syvertsen, Laine Bridell, D. Wayne Osgood, and Constance A. Flanagan. 2011. ‘‘Exploring the Changing Meaning of Work for American High School Seniors from 1976 to 2005.’’ Youth & Society 43 (3): 11101135. doi:10.1177/0044118X 10381367.


work values and beliefs of 'generation x' and …€¦ · web viewharvey j. krahn &...

Documents