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.
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 “yessaying” 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
1 The method is principal component analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation. Earlier multiple correspondence analysis of dicotomized indexes was used. The resulting dimensions are highly similar for the two techniques.
The third dimension, which is not considered in this paper, is a political left-right dimension. At the extremes we find a preference for equality and public solutions versus inequality and private solutions, the first ones combined with concern for the environment, the last with an emphasis on economic growth. On the left or radical side we also find values such as tolerance, individuality, anti-authority and gender equality, on the right/conservative side conformity, status and enthusiasm for technological innovations. The dimension has small age differences, a curvilinear cohort pattern with the generations of 68’ers as more radical than the preceding or succeeding generations and stability over time for the population as a whole as well as within cohorts.
2

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
Flanagan
Libertarian
Modern
Hellevik
Materialism
Materialist
Outer-directed
Weak moral constraints
Modern materialism
Materialism
Change oriented
Postmaterialism
Weak social constraints
Modern idealism
Non-Materialism
Idealist
Inner-directed
Strong social constraints
Traditional material.
Authoritarian
Traditional
Stability oriented
Strong moral constraints
Traditional idealism
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
2 His original 4-item index has been included in the Monitor survey, and the average position of his materialists and postmaterialists on the two Monitor dimensions calculated (Hellevik 1993).
3

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 selfindulgence, 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
4

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).
1999
1997
1995
1991
1987
1993
1989
1985
19.07.01
mmi
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
5

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 materialistidealist 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-
Dimension 1
Dimension 1
Modern
Dimension 2
Main diagonal
Materialist
Low social constr.
Bi diagonal Low moral constr.
Percent in the 3 extreme deciles
Modern (8-10)
Traditional (1-3)
7,9
6,0
6,9
7,4
63
3
Dimension 2 Materialist (8-10) 36
Idealist (1-3) 23
Main diagonal Modern-idealist
(Social restraints) Traditional-mat.
48
12
7,7
6,3
6,6
7,6
60
5
42
20
43
17
7,1
6,1
6,3
7,0
49
8
37
22
39
19
6,4
5,7
6,0
6,2
38
14
32
28
36
23
5,6
5,4
5,6
5,5
25
24
29
31
31
28
4,5
5,2
5,0
4,7
15
40
27
34
24
35
3,4
5,1
4,3
3,8
6
60
25
35
16
47
12
49
2,8
4,7
4,1
3,1
4
72
19
40
Bi diagonal Modern-material. 58
(Moral restraints) Traditional-ideal. 9
(N)
61
8
51
12
37
18
25
26
16
39
8
52
5
65
2023 2521 3108 6064 4428 3069 2350 1754
Max dif.
36
37
56
57
5,1
1,6
2,8
4,5
59
69
23
20
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
3 The diagonals are defined as additive functions of factor scores for the two dimensions (main diagonal as score of
D1 – D2, the bidiagonal as D1 + D2, with modern and materialistic as the positive poles).
4 The units are, on the basis of their factor scores, divided into ten groups of equal size for all the studies combined, scored 1-10.
6

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)
Modern
15-29
Materialistic Men
Worker
High income
30-54
High education
White collar
Urban Idealistic
Middle/North
East
West
Women
Rural
Low income
Low education
Traditional
55-
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.
5 The figure shows bivariate associations. The importance of the age difference is strengthened by the fact that part of the association with value orientation for education and income is spurious, due to their correlation with the causally
7

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.
Another explanation is that experiences during adolescence make a lasting imprint on the value preferences of an individual, which will remain relatively stable later in life. When the circumstances during adolescence change over time, birth cohorts will differ in the value preferences of their members. This is the cohort effect perspective on age differences in value orientation.
The distinction is important with regard to the consequences of age differences, what potential for cultural change in the years ahead they signify. If the age differences reflect stable cohort characteristics, cohort replacement will produce a gradual change in the value climate of society. This change will be greater the larger the cohort differences, and the larger the proportion of the population leaving and entering between the two points in time.
If the age variation is related to life cycle processes, however, the impact of differences between those who leave and those who enter will be balanced by the changes in value preferences among individuals present in the population at both points in time. The individual changes over the life course make the aggregate distribution of values remain stable.
6
Individual changes in value orientation after the formative years of adolescence may also be the result of period effects , when contemporary events influence not only the young but all members of the population.
The cohort (generation) perspective assumes stability in value preferences of an individual, the life cycle and period perspectives expect values to change during the lifetime of the individual, but for different reasons. Life cycle change is predictable, the young will over time become more like the old, while period effects are unpredictable, depending upon the nature of the influences from historical events. This also means that the impact of period effects on cultural trends in a society is unpredictable, while cohort effects will move the value distribution in the direction of the preferences of the younger generations. prior variable age.
8

Conventional wisdom tends to se age differences as a life cycle eff ect. The “youth rebellion” is not to be taken too seriously, as they grow older the young will “come to their senses” and adopt the values of previous generations. The saying “the cow has forgotten she was once a calf” suggests that when older people are annoyed by youthful behaviour, it is because they do not remember that they themselves acted in the same way when they were young.
Among social scientists the assumption often is that age differences represent cohort effects.
The discussion of Karl Mannheim (1952) of historic generations is a classic contribution. In recent years the works of Ronald Inglehart are central, emphasising the importance of physical and material security during adolescence for the formation of values. The assumption of cohort differences in value orientation is the basis for his prediction of a postmaterialist cultural trend in post-industrial societies.
Data from a single point in time cannot tell what processes lie behind the age differences.
The age variable is ambiguous, cohort membership and life phase cannot be separated. With diacronic data as in the Monitor surveys this becomes possible, we may by means of a cohort analysis form an impression of the relative importance of cohort and life cycle effects.
COHORT ANALYSIS OF THE VALUE DIMENSIONS
In a cohort analysis we follow persons born within a certain period, to see if the cohort preserves its characteristics over time. With time series data it is not the same persons, but representative samples from the cohorts which are compared, showing aggregate but not individual change. In a standard cohort table the width of the age classes corresponds to the time span between the points of measurement (Glenn 1977). Then the results over time for a birth cohort are displayed along a diagonal (Table 2).
The Monitor surveys are two years apart. Two-year age classes give too small bases in each cell, and “noise” in the shape of random sampling errors. To reduce this problem, pairs of studies have been combined (1985 and 1987 becomes 1986, etc.). With four-year intervals and two studies combined, the bases become more satisfactory.
7
Here we shall concentrate on the two diagonals of the Monitor cultural space. The main diagonal opposes modern idealism and traditional materialism, or in Ing lehart’s terms
6 This holds with a stable population size, major demographic changes may have an impact on the total value distribution.
7 The number of respondents in a cell varies between 104 and 873, with 388 as the average. Ten of the 64 cells have
N lower than 200. Respondents older than 77 years are left out due to small numbers. The age of respondents has been changed to that of the new “time of measurement”. For 1986, respondents from the 1985-study have had one year added to their age in 1985, respondents from the 1987-study one year subtracted, etc. This means that the lower age limit for the sample becomes 14 instead of 15 years.
9

postmaterialism and materialism, in Flanagan’s low and high social constraints. The bidiagonal opposes modern materialism and traditional idealism, or low versus high moral constraints.
Table 2 shows the cohort pattern for position on the two Monitor diagonals. The figure in each cell gives the average decile score (multiplied by 10). Read vertically we compare age classes at a certain point in time, and notice a clear tendency for the young to score higher than the old. The average distance for all four years between the two youngest and the two oldest classes in the table is 27,8 for the main and 44,8 for the bidiagonal.
Read horizontally, we get an impression of changes over time for each age group. There is a weak tendency away from the modern-idealist (postmaterialist) position, especially for the younger age groups. A modern-materialist position becomes much more common for all age groups. Finally, by reading the table at an angel, we see the changes within each birth cohort.
For the main diagonal (Table 2A), there is a clear trend away from the modern-idealist position.
Between 1986 and 1998 the average cohort change is –7,4. For the bidiagonal (Table 2B), there is a pattern of stability (average cohort change 0,2).
All
Year Birth 1998 – 1986
Age
14-17 Y
18-21 Y
1986 1990 1994 1998 Cohort Cohort Age
73
68
70
70
68
66
70
63
1981-84
1977-80
-3
-5
22-25
26-29
30-33
34-37
38-41
42-45
46-49
50-53
54-57
58-61
62-65
66-69
70-73 O
74-77 O
Old-Young
69
66
62
61
60
57
55
50
52
46
45
49
50
48
42
41
43
40
39
43 42
-28 -30
57 56
67
64
62
61
60
55
54
61
58
59
57
60
55
52
64 1973-76
61 1969-72 -12
59 1965-68 -9
59 1961-64 -10
59 1957-60 -7
54 1953-56 -8
54 1949-52 -7
48
51
45
43
54 1945-48 -6
50 1941-44 -7
45 1937-40 -10
45 1933-36 -5
4
-2
-1
0
40
40
42 1929-32 -10
42 1925-28 -4
36 44 1921-24 -1
-29 -24 -27,8 -7,4
1
-1,6
53 55 Averages
1
-1
-5
-5
-3
-2
-1
-3
-1
10

Year Birth 1998
– 1986
Age
14-17 Y
18-21 Y
22-25
26-29
30-33
34-37
38-41
42-45
46-49
50-53
54-57
58-61
62-65
66-69
70-73 O
74-77 O
Old-Young
All
54
49
46
41
40
39
35
1986 1990 1994 1998 Cohort Cohort Age
72 71 75 77 1981-84 5
74
71
65
60
57
74
73
65
62
55
76
77
73
66
64
81
79
74
70
67
1977-80
1973-76
1969-72
1965-68
1961-64
2
-4
-4
7
8
9
10
10
55
51
52
42
41
39
37
31
27
37
32
25 27
-47 -43
51 53
57
57
53
54
45
42
40
39
34
28
-45
56
65 1957-60 0
62 1953-56 2
57 1949-52 0
56 1945-48 2
54 1941-44 5
46 1937-40 0
43 1933-36 2
41
39
31
-44
60
1929-32
1925-28
1921-24
-44,8
1
0
-4
0,2
Averages
10
12
6
9,8
11
13
11
15
14
7
8
What the pattern of a cohort table means, is uncertain, since a difference between any two cells always has two of the three effects of life cycle, cohort and period as possible explanations. The cohort stability for position on the bidiagonal (Table 2B) makes it easier to draw a conclusion, however. The simplest interpretation is that this indicates individual stability and thus the absence of life cycle or period effects. It cannot be ruled out that we have life cycle and period effects in opposite directions balancing each other. Based on the principle of accepting the less complex of two interpretations, however, we will accept the former and assume that there is no life cycle effect. This in turn means that the massive age differences may be interpreted as a cohort effect, that the marked trend in the direction of modern materialism is a result of cohort replacement, and that a continuation of this trend may be predicted for the near future.
The main diagonal table (2A) shows an average cohort change of –7,4. Does this mean that the age difference is a life cycle effect? The distance between the two extreme age groups on either side is 56 years (73,5 – 17,5). For the young to reach the same value position as the old during such at time span, a cohort on the average would have to travel 1/56 of the distance each year. For the twelve year period from 1986 to 1998 the fraction becomes 12/56 = 0,21, which multiplied with the actual distance of –27,8 is –5,8. This is less than the average cohort change, which accordingly is more than strong enough for the new cohorts during their lifetime to get to where the old cohorts are today.
11

The size of the cohort change means that there also have to be a period effect at work. The movement for the population as a whole, from 57 to 55 shown in the bottom line for “all”, may be interpreted as a result of this effect. We may thus conclude that the movement away from modern idealism or postmaterialism reflects a “Zeitgeist” working against such values.
A life cycle effect producing the age differences and a period effect causing a change away from modern idealism for the population as a whole, is the straightforward interpretation of the pattern of cohort change in Table 2A. This is contrary to postmaterialist theory, which on the basis of increasing economic prosperity in the period predicts that we will have period effects in the opposite direction, and in addition a postmaterialist cohort effect.
In a cohort analysis, however, other interpretations are always possible. If we assume that not just a part but the entire change within the cohorts is a period effect, this would mean that there is no life cycle effect and that the entire age difference is a cohort effect. In this case the fact that aggregate change is less than the change within cohorts is seen as a result of cohort replacement counteracting the period effect.
In conclusion it can be said that it is uncertain whether there were any cohort effects in a modern-idealistic or postmaterialist direction in Norway at the turn of the century, in contrast to the clear indication of a strong cohort effect along the other diagonal towards a reduction of moral constraints. Moreover it is likely that we have a period effect working against modernidealistic or postmaterialist values. The pattern of change in the cohort tables thus leads to the conclusion that there has been a shift away from postmaterialism and towards a new kind of materialism, characterised by the seeking of pleasure rather than economic security as in the traditional kind of materialism discussed by Inglehart.
THE CHANGE DIAGRAM
The information load in a cohort table is overwhelming, each of the two tables above contains more than a hundred figures. This, in addition to limited space, makes it impossible to present results for more than a few variables in an article. A change diagram , summarising the essentials of the pattern of change for a variable as a single point in a two dimentional space, will thus be useful.
In the diagram the population change between two points in time is shown along the vertical axis. In our case this is the difference between the results for a variable in 1998 and 1986 for the population as a whole.
8 The horizontal axis shows the difference for the same variable between those who have entered the population and those who have left between the two points in time.
8 1998 means the combined surveys of 1997 and 1999, and likewise 1986 is 1985 and 1987.
12

The two categories constitute the cohort replacement which have taken place, and the difference between them may accordingly be called the replacement difference .
9 The newcomers are those respondents in the1998-study who are too young to have been part of the adult population in 1986 (age groups 14-25). Who among those interviewed in 1986 that died in the intervening period, we do not know. T he value profile of the “exiters” may be represented, however, by that of respondents aged 48 years and above in 1986. Analyses of mortality data for Norway indicate that this group will have the same average age as that of the departed between 1986 and
1998.
10
Figure 4 presents the main features of the change diagram. The diagonal represents the replacement effect , which equals the difference between newcomers and leavers (replacement difference), weighted by their share of the population. For the twelve year period 1986-1998 approximately one fifth of the Norwegian population was replaced. This means that for each point on the diagonal, the size of the corresponding population change equals one fifth of the replacement difference.
11
Figure 4. Change diagram: Relationship between aggregate population change and replacement difference as indication of the presence of life cycle, cohort and period effect
30
25
20
Diagonal =
Replacement effect when 1/5 of the population is involved
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
0 20 40 60
Replacement difference (Newcomers - Leavers)
80 100
9 By ordering the values of a variable in such a way that those preffered by the young are defined as the “high” end of the scale, we avoid negative values on replacement difference axis.
10 Migration also contributes to the replacement processes, but is not considered here, due to minor importance in
Norway in this period.
11 For the sake of simplicity, we here assume a stable population (groups of newcomers and exiters of equal size), which is roughly the case for Norway in this period. In the case of a difference in size, this in itself may have an impact on the trends of value change.
13

The location of a variable in the diagram will indicate whether cohort, life cycle or period effects are at work. A variable positioned in origo –no difference between the groups replacing each other, and no change over time for the population – is a case of no effects present.
A position out along the horizontal axis, with no change over time for the population even though the new cohorts are clearly different from the older people they replace, indicates that the age difference is the result of life cycle processes. The replacement effect is offset by the individual changes undergone by those members of the population present at both points in time. In this case substantial age differences do not signify any potential for future change.
As always in this kind of analysis, alternative interpretations of the pattern are possible. The replacement effect may have been counteracted by a period effect, completely or in combination with a life cycle effect in the same direction, which would mean that the age difference wholly or partly represents cohort differences. We will base our interpretations on the principle of accepting the least complex of the alternative explanations. This means that the first one-effect explanation of a position out on the horizontal axis (life-cycle effect) is preferred to the two-effect explanation (cohort and period effects in opposite directions) and the one involving all three effects. But the existence of reasonable alternative explanations means that we never can conclude with certainty what processes lie behind a pattern of change.
A position on the diagonal means that the effect of replacement exactly equals the population change, suggesting that the age difference is related to cohort membership. In this case a continuation of the population trend may be expected.
A position between the diagonal and the horizontal axis indicates a combination of cohort and life cycle effects. The distance from the axis and up reflects the cohort effect, the distance from the diagonal down the life cycle effect, rendering the population change less than the replacement effect.
A position outside this space between the diagonal and the axis tells us that a period effect must have been present. Positions below the axis show a trend in the opposite direction of what cohort replacement may explain, since the trend for the population as a whole is away from the preferences of the young. The simplest explanation is a life cycle effect accounting for the age differences and a period effect in the same direction causing the population change.
A position above the diagonal shows a trend in the direction suggested by the age differences, but which is stronger than what cohort replacement may produce. This suggests a combination of cohort and period effects working in the same direction.
14

PATTERNS OF CHANGE FOR VALUE INDEXES AND INDICATORS
As a demonstration of the possibility for displaying results for several variables in one change diagram, figure 5 gives the results for all 25 value indexes, while figure 6 compares the seven indicators of the law-and-order index. The immediate impression is the great variation in tendency, for different values and even for different aspects of the same value.
The political values, opposing preferences for private versus public solutions, economic inequality versus equality and environmental protection versus economic growth, are close to origo, showing little change and also little potential for future change in the form of age differences. Several other values lie close to the diagonal, indicating aggregate change due to cohort replacement. The potential for future change depends upon the size of the replacement difference, ranging from small for materialism to large for feelings.
Other values, e.g. lack of respect for laws and regulations and preference for immediate consumption, fall between the axis and the diagonal, suggesting that the age differences are partly a result of life cycle, partly a result of cohort effects.
Figure 5. Change diagram for 25 value indexes (standardized to vary between 0 and 100, with 100 representing the pole preferred by the young, as indicated in the chart): Population change 1998-
1986 and replacement difference (difference between “enterers” (14-25 years in 1998, N=1224) and
“exiters” (represented by respondents aged 48+ years in 1986, N=1538). A square represents two indexes)
14
12
Sexual permissiveness
10
Technology
8
6
4
2
0
Anti selfrealization
Inequality
Private
Environment
Anti health
Egotism Hedonism
Anti authority
Feelings
Urban
Risktaking
Materialism
Gender equality
Spontaneity
Closeness
Anti religious
Individuality
Anti Law&order
Consumption
Status
-2
Tolerance
-4 Anti patriotism
Novelty
-6
-8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Replacement difference (Age 14-25 in 1998 minus age 48+ in 1986)
40
15

Then there are a number of values, such as sexual permissiveness and enthusiasm for technological innovations, where the increase in support for the preferences of the young exceeds the maximum possible effect of cohort replacement. This means that there must have been a period effect working in the same direction. For other values, such as tolerance and preference for novelty over tradition, the trend is a decrease for values preferred by the young, which can only be explained by a period effect in the opposite direction.
Also the results for the seven questions of whether violations of specific rules are deemed acceptable or not, show a mixed pattern. The age differences in three cases seem to represent cohort effects, in three life cycle effects, and in the last case a mix of the two. The “zeitgeist” in two cases seems to be in support for law and order, and in two other cases to work against it.
Explanations of past developments as well as predictions of the future for the normative climate in Norway thus cannot be general, but specific with regard to which rules are considered.
Figure 6. Change diagram for indicators of respect for laws and regulations: Population change 1998-
1986 and replacement difference (difference between “enterers” (14-25 years in 1998, N=1224) and
“exiters” (represented by respondents aged 48+ years in 1986, N=1538)) in the percentage who feels that the behaviour in question is acceptable or under doubt acceptable
18
16
14
12
10
8
Smoke pot
Drive too fast
Keep money found
6
4
2
0
-2
Drive under the influence of alcohol
-4
-6
0
Tax evation
10 20
Moonshining (illegal production of liquor)
30
Not pay on public transportation
40 50 60
Replacement difference (Age 14-25 in 1998 minus age 48- in 1986)
70
16

CONCLUSIONS
The results of the analysis suggest that general conclusions with regard to whether the age differences in value orientation reflect cohort or life cycle effects cannot be drawn. The pattern is varied, whether we look at value dimensions, indexes or indicators. The data does not support a conclusion that values remain stable for the rest of life after adolescence. The reason for the instability found for several values may of course lie in the empirical measures. The underlying values could be stable even if the answers to indicator questions change. Even so it seems reasonable to conclude that value preferences in many cases will change during an individual’s life course, due to life cycle processes or contemporary events.
The variation in results also means that a strict life course explanation of all age differences is untenable. There is a whole range of substantial age differences in value orientation, which partly or totally seem to be a result of cohort differences. The new cohorts coming into adolescence in the 1980s or 1990s are clearly more oriented towards modern and materialistic values than prior generations.
The preoccupation with material possessions and consumption among members of these cohorts is at odds with the postmaterialist theory of Ronald Inglehart. Increasing economic prosperity in the post-war period may at first have contributed to a reduced interest in the material aspects of existence. But in the 1980s a threshold was crossed, where a situation of economic security during adolescence changed into one of affluence and immediate gratification of desires. This may have caused a qualitative change in the relationship between economy and values, so that rising prosperity will increase rather than decrease interest in and dependence on material goods and consumption.
17

REFERENCES
Barstad, Anders (ed.) (2001). På vei mot det gode samfunn? Utredning til Finansdepartementet i forbindelse med arbeidet med nytt Langtidsprogram, 2002-2005. Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå, Notat
2001-21.
Flanagan, Scott C. (1982a). "Changing values in advanced industrial society". Comparative Political
Studies . Vol. 14: 403-44.
Flanagan, Scott C. (1982b). "Measuring value change in advanced industrial society: A rejoinder to
Inglehart". Comparative Political Studies . Vol. 15: 99-128.
Glenn, Norval D. (1977). Cohort Analysis . QASS Vol. 5. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hellevik, Ottar (1993). ”Postmaterialism as a dimension of cultural change ”. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research Vol. 5, Nr.3: 211-233.
Hellevik, Ottar (1995). "'Fra tilskuere til deltagere'. Utdrag av opposisjonen ved Lise Togebys doktordisputas"
Politica 27-2, s. 213-222.
Hellevik, Ottar (1996). Nordmenn og det gode liv. Norsk Monitor 1985-1995 . Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Inglehart, Ronald (1977). The Silent Revolution – Changing Values and Political Styles among Western
Publics . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald (1990 ) .
Culture shift in advanced industrial society . Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Mannheim, Karl (1952). Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
18