“A fairly typical citation [from the first edition] has been after a statement that separating age, period, and cohort effects is difficult. I hope the authors who cite this edition will recognize that, except under conditions that hardly ever exist, a definitive separation of age, period, and cohort effects is not just difficult, but impossible. However, I also hope that they will realize that a definitive separation of effects is not necessary in order for cohort analysis to be useful.” [p. vii.]
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>wrote:
> Interesting. Thanks, Mark.
>
> It does suggest that we can't really tell whether the cohort leads the
> social change, or vice-versa? Or neither, I suppose, too . . .
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Mark Bennett <bennett.mab at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, maybe. The key quote on page 21 states: "A generational analysis
> > textbook argues, 'According to almost any constant definition of
> > conservatism people typically become less rather than more conservative
> as
> > they age.'" The source for this conclusion is cited as "Cohort Analysis"
> > (1977) by Norval Glenn. "Cohort Analysis" was completely rewritten by
> > Professor Glenn and a second edition was published in 2005, "lacking even
> a
> > single paragraph lifted from the [first edition]." In his preface to the
> > second edition Professor Glenn writes the the new edition was needed
> > because
> > "I have changed my mind about some matters, new analysis strategies have
> > been introduced, and the treatment of data sources is badly dated." He
> > goes
> > on to state: "Numerous authors have cited the first edition while
> ignoring
> > the cautions in it, occasionally even citing it a authority for
> > inappropriate applications of cohort analysis."
> >
> > When looking at the citation, the thought that immediately leaps to mind
> > is
> > that a hell of a lot has changed in American society and culture since
> > 1977. As it happens, the second edition of "Cohort Analysis" is
> available
> > in preview form from Google books (
> >
> >
> http://books.google.com/books?id=KZrEevjbE80C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Norval+glenn+cohort+analysis&source=bl&ots=LWZtsuBY3e&sig=VIgMmkvwEHnWvIiJAIFPDjK6Gk4&hl=en&ei=4RyaTfWqGPOK0QH5h9n2Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=conservative&f=false
> > ),
> > and Professor Glenn's revised study appears to take this societal
> > change
> > in consideration:
> >
> > “ . . . not all changes that occur in individuals as they grow older are
> > the
> > results of aging. Especially in modern societies, people grow older not
> in
> > a static society but in a changing one, and influences from social and
> > cultural change impinge on persons as they grow older, bringing a bout
> > changes in attitudes, behavior, health, and emotional states or
> offsetting
> > effects that would result from aging in a static society. These period
> > effects are confounded with age effects in the data from panel studies.
> To
> > illustrate, in the United States, the birth cohorts that were in young
> > adulthood in the 1970s had, as a whole, become more conservative in
> several
> > respects by the late 1980s. One cannot tell how much, if any, of this
> > shift
> > resulted from influences associated with aging; the fact that the society
> > as
> > a whole changed in the same direction as the cohorts suggests that much,
> if
> > not most, of the intracohort trend was brought about by period
> influences.
> > Therefore panel studies that gauged the political attitudes of high
> school
> > seniors in the mid-1970s and again 10 years later fail to provide strong
> > evidence of any effects of the transition to adulthood.” (*Ibid*, p. 4.)
> >
> > Of course, to determine the full scope of the change in Professor Glenn's
> > thinking would require a comparison between the first and second editions
> > of
> > "Cohort Analysis"; but the question arises why a voter demographics study
> > published in 2010 would cite a conclusion from a 1977 study that was
> > completely revised in 2005, and which apparently no longer contains the
> > cited conclusion. (A search in Google Books does not uncover the
> statement
> > quoted on p. 21 of the demographics survery, even on those pages not
> > available for preview.) Again, the data available online is incomplete,
> > but as Professor Glenn is now a contributor to the Cato Institute's blog,
> > one wonders if he stands by his 1977 conclusion.
> >
> >
> http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/01/21/norval-d-glenn/against-family-fatalism/
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> But this is really heartening - because people don't get more
> > > > conservative
> > > > >> as they age.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the data on this?
> > > >
> > > > See pp. 20-21 of this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/06/pdf/voter_demographics.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > j
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>