1. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo 1 Leisurely Moments or Lifetimes? Context and the Study of Leisure, Consumption and Stratification Paul Lambert, Stirling University Max Bergman, Universität Basel Ken Prandy, Cardiff University

2. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo2 ‘Leisure / Consumption’ in Stratification studies  Persistence of relationship?  Homology v’s Individualisation v’s ‘Univore/Omnivore’  Purpose behind relationships  Specification of relationship?  Methods of representing stratification / Unit of analysis  Anticipated importance of LC type:  Some LC patterns not associated with stratification  Some LC patterns are linked to strat. in ‘type’  Some LC patterns are linked to strat. in ‘degree’  Veblen  Multiple mechanisms of the LC link  Seemingly contradictory – or still consistent?

3. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo3 3 critical empirical contexts?  Longitudinal  Changing LC choices over lifetime  Vulnerability of LC choices to other lifetime changes  Trends: Is evidence of change (period) conflated with lifetime effects (age, cohort)  Regional / geographic – ‘opportunity structures’  Stratification measures This paper: evidence on these from:  British Household Panel Study 1991-2002  Swiss Household Panel 1999-2003

4. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo4 Measuring Leisure/Consumption  [Table 2] Household level: Individual level Access to Car Member of sports club Washing machine Member of political party Dish washer Member of charity Home computer Goes to cinema regularly Home computer + internet Goes to theatre / concerts Owns a second home Goes out for a drink Private garden Does home/garden improvements Go on holiday 1+ per year

5. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo5 Evidence of LC–Stratification associations  [Table3]  Numerous, albeit moderate, associations +  Considerable variations by LC type  Strongest: Computer; dishwasher[UK]; holidays; theatre  Weakest: Washing machine; garden; Sports club[Sw]; Drinking; DIY  Some National differences: Car ownership; dishwasher; 2 nd home; sports club; drinking  Remarkable x-national persistence – eg, cinema [Unit & Level of measurement – see later] Conclude: These are consistent with more than 1 theory..

6. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo6 Homology v’s Univore/Omnivore   Inconclusive {appropriate data?} [Table 4] #acts-Cam: UK: 2002- 0.36 1996- 0.35 Switz: 1999- 0.32 2002- 0.30

7. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo7 Context(1): Regional effects  Consistently moderate cluster effects [Table 5]   X-national difference - larger for UK {household}   UK: Smaller districts greater context   Switzerland: Larger aggregates (urban/rural; language) more significant   LC studies should acknowledge regional context…  Varying impact as regression effects [Tables 5/9]   A number of significant main effects – eg UK London effect   A few examples of LC interactions – eg hhld goods   LC studies should acknowledge regional context, though it probably won’t affect anything else?

8. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo8 Context(2): representing stratification  [Tables 3 and 6]  Occupational measures   Primarily – same effects regardless of measure   Aside1 – selected examples of categorical structures: non- linearities (T6) and categorical transition assocs (T8)   Aside2 – measures of social interaction, eg CAMSIS  Education  Education [national variation – harmonisation problems]  Income  Income [dominance of household level]  Unit of analysis   Individual – not appealing, but adequate and convenient   Household – usually strongest association   Parental – persistently strong, esp UK; hierarchical schemes  Gender differences – need more exploration

9. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo9 Longitudinal context 1: Temporal effects [Table 7]  Age   Strong for PC, Cinema; otherwise fairly weak   usually negative quadratic   X-national similarity  Period   Usually LC varies by (categorical) year (NB # years varies)  Cohort   Close equivalence to age  Age + Period or Age + Cohort   Consistent ability to distinguish A + P/C main effects   UK - Age effects most often greater in latest years (12 yrs)   Switz – Age effects sometimes lower in later years (5yrs)

10. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo10 Longitudinal context 2: LC Transitions [Table 8]  LC history {in} stabilities   Most measures have stability, but non-ignorable within-person transitions (# years varies)  Models for transition propensities   no bivariate relation to stratification scale, but relate to both current, and changes in, stratification class   often associated with age   Common regression finding: T = C + A + Δ + F   Conclude: L/C patterns adjust evolve over life course in a way that is partially influenced by stratification

11. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo11 Longitudinal context(3): Relative impact of time and stratification  [Table 9]  Stratification effects diminish once account for longitudinal context plus selected regional, household measures  Main effects of linear time period usually minimal  Stratification-Age interaction often positive  Period/Cohort differences insubstantial (short panel spells don’t support this)  Lagged Dep-Var – shifts focus to transitions, diminishes all other explanatory factors

12. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo12 Conclusions  Importance of LC type   {Some geographical impacts}   {Small stratification measurement impacts}  Longitudinal impacts:  Age – can be substantial, though varies by LC type - interaction: greater impact of strat. at older ages - interaction: greater impact of strat. at older ages - role of (age-related) household structure - role of (age-related) household structure  Period – inconclusive  Cohort – inconclusive  Transitions – substantial importance of state changes