Stratified Incentives and Life Course Behaviors

Abstract

Psychologists have observed that American adolescents often have difficulty committing themselves to efforts either in school or in other activities (Erikson, 1963; Keniston, 1970). While Erikson and Keniston recognize that this lack of commitment arises due to psychological, interpersonal, cultural, economic, and social factors, psychologists usually focus on intra-psychic processes. For instance, a textbook identifies “identity disorder” as one source of low achievement in late adolescence, recommends psychotherapeutic techniques to address the internal disorder, and does not even consider the possible influence of external social context on these behaviors (Mandel & Marcus, 1988, p. 299). Another psychologist says that adolescents lack “career maturity,” which makes them unwilling to work hard in school for the sake of their future careers (Crites, 1976). Psychologists are not the only ones to make such inferences. In the 1980s, labor economists sometimes explained youths’ job turnover by saying that some youth are unstable and immature (Osterman, 1980). Practitioners often make such inferences. In interviews in the 1990s, we have heard high school teachers and counselors say that adolescents are “present oriented,” cannot defer gratification, and will not work hard in school for future benefits. One guidance counselor reported, “these kids cannot plan beyond next Saturday night’s date.” In many of these accounts, the problem is inside students, and it comes from the adolescent life stage. These interpretations rarely mention social context.