Stability and Change in Value-Orientations

  • Nobutaka FukudaEmail author


In this chapter, we will investigate attitudinal changes between generations in Japan. As discussed in the previous chapters, ideational factors have affected Japanese marriage and fertility behaviour. More specifically, people who held progressive and individualistic attitudes showed a lower risk of getting married and giving birth to children. Yet, it remains to be seen whether a persistent attitudinal change should be observed across generations. Taking this point into consideration, in this chapter we will examine whether ideational change can be identified between birth cohorts and temporal periods in Japan. We will first provide a theoretical review on the relation between socio-economic development and value-orientation. After explaining the data and methods used in this chapter, we will look at the difference in attitudes from a viewpoint of cohorts and periods. Finally, we will examine attitudinal change between generations in Japan by employing Hierarchical Age-Period-Cohort analysis.


Age effect Attitudes to gender and inter-generational relations Cohort effect Hierarchical Age-Period-Cohort analysis Period effect 


  1. Aassve, A., Sironi, M., & Bassi, V. (2013). Explaining attitudes towards demographic behaviour. European Sociological Review, 29, 316–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariès, P. (1980). Two successive motivations for the declining birth rate in the west. Population and Development Review, 6, 645–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, D. (1976). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, H. D., Kornberg, A., McIntyre, C., Bauer-Kaase, P., & Kaase, M. (1999). The effect of economic priorities on the measurement of value change: New experimental evidence. The American Political Science Review, 93, 637–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durkheim, É. (1956). Education and sociology. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferarra, M. (1996). The ‘southern model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fienberg, S. E., & Mason, W. M. (1985). Specification and Implementation of age, period and cohort models. In W. M. Mason & S. E. Fienberg (Eds.), Cohort Analysis in Social Research: Beyond the Identification Problem (pp. 45–88). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Fukuda, N. (2003). Comparing family-friendly policies in Japan and Europe: Are we in the same or in a different league? Journal of Population and Social Security, 1, 31–45.Google Scholar
  13. Gauthier, A. H. (1996). The state and the family. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gauthier, A. H., & Hatzius, J. (1997). Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis. Population Studies, 51, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gauthier, A. H., & Philipov, D. (2008). Can policies enhance fertility in europe? Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2008, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glenn, N. D. (1989). A caution about mechanical solutions to the identification problem in cohort analysis: comment on Sasaki and Suzuki. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 754–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glenn, N. D. (2003). Distinguishing age, period, and cohort effects. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 465–76). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Goodman, R., & Peng, I. (1996). The east asian welfare states. In G. Espin-Andersen (Ed.), Welfare states in transition: National adaptations in global economies (pp. 192–224). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Gornick, J. C., Meyers, M., & Ross, K. (1997). Supporting the employment of mothers: Policy variation across fourteen welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 7, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haller, M. (2002). Theory and method in the comparative study of values: Critique and alternative to Inglehart. European Sociological Review, 18, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halman, L., Inglehart, R., Díez-Medrano, J., Luijkx, R., Morena, A., & Basáñez, M. (Eds.). (2008). Changing values and beliefs in 85 countries: Trends from the values surveys from 1981 to 2004. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  22. Hauser, R. M. (1970). Context and consex: A cautionary tale. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobcraft, J, Menken J, & Preston, S. (1985). Age, period, and cohort effects in demography: A review. In W. M. Mason & S. E. Fienberg (Eds.) Cohort Analysis in Social Research: Beyond the Identification Problem (pp. 89–135). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Inglehart, R. (1995). Changing values, economic development and political change. International Social Science Journal, 47, 379–403.Google Scholar
  27. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Inglehart, R. (Ed.). (2003). Human values and social change: Findings from the values surveys. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  29. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Inglehart, R., & Basañez, M. (Eds.). (2010). Changing human beliefs and values, 1981–2007: A cross-cultural sourcebook based on the world values surveys and european values studies. D.F., Siglo Veintiuno Editores: México.Google Scholar
  31. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jagodzinski, W. (1983). Materialism in Japan reconsidered: Toward a synthesis of generational and life-cycle explanations. The American Political Science Review, 77, 887–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lesthaeghe, R. (1983). A century of demographic and cultural change in Western Europe. Population and Development Review, 9, 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of Welfare Regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  36. Mason, W. M., & Fienberg, S. E. (Eds.). (1985). Cohort analysis in social research: Beyond the identification problem. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Mason, K. O., Mason, W. M., Winsborough, H. H., & Kenneth Poole, W. (1973). Some methodological issues in cohort analysis of archival data. American Sociological Review, 38, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Newson, L., & Richerson, P. J. (2009). Why do people become modern? A darwinian explanation. Population and Development Review, 35, 117–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (Eds.). (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Sainsbury, D. (1994). Women’s and men’s social rights: Gendering dimensions of welfare states. In D. Sainsbury (Ed.), Gendering welfare states (pp. 150–69). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Salles, A. (2006). The effects of family policy in the former GDR on nuptiality and births outside marriage. Population (English Edition), 61, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sasaki, M., & Suzuki, T. (1987). Changes in religious commitment in the United States, Holland, and Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1055–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siaroff, A. (1994). Work, welfare and gender equality: A new typology. In D. Sainsbury (Ed.), Gendering welfare states (pp. 82–100). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 37, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tranter, B., & Western, M. (2003). Postmaterial values and age: The case of Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wrigley, E. A. (1978). Fertility strategy for the individual and the group. In C. Tilly (Ed.), Historical studies of changing fertility (pp. 135–154). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Yang, Y. (2008). Social inequalities in happiness in the United States, 1972 to 2004: An age-period-cohort analysis. American Sociological Review, 73, 204–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2006). A mixed models approach to the age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys, with an application to data on trends in verbal test scores. Sociological Methodology, 36, 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2008). Age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys: Fixed or random effects? Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2013). Age-period-cohort analysis: New models, methods, and empirical applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations