This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 02 October 2014, At: 10:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Youth Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20

A Material Paradox: Socioeconomic

Status, Young People's Disposable
Income and Consumer Culture
Patrick West , Helen Sweeting , Robert Young & Mary Robins
Published online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Patrick West , Helen Sweeting , Robert Young & Mary Robins (2006) A Material
Paradox: Socioeconomic Status, Young People's Disposable Income and Consumer Culture, Journal of
Youth Studies, 9:4, 437-462, DOI: 10.1080/13676260600805739

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260600805739

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Youth Studies
Vol. 9, No. 4, September 2006, pp. 437
462

A Material Paradox: Socioeconomic

Status, Young People’s Disposable
Income and Consumer Culture
Patrick West, Helen Sweeting, Robert Young &
Mary Robins
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

It is commonly assumed that young people’s disposable income reflects the socioeconomic
status of their family, those in more advantaged situations having more money than
those who are disadvantaged. Plausible though this assumption is, evidence on the issue
is surprisingly thin. Using data from a longitudinal study of young people in the West
of Scotland, first surveyed aged 11 and followed up at ages 13 and 15, we examine the
social distribution of pocket money and earnings from domestic and external work by
reference to social class, material deprivation and several poverty indicators. The results
show an inverse relationship between mean income and both social class and deprivation
at each age, which at age 15 extends to each source of income. With respect to poverty
indicators, the finding that ‘poorer’ children had more money at earlier ages did not
extend to age 15. Further evidence on consumer attitudes and possessions shows that each
is related to personal income while attitudes are not class related and consumer
possessions increase with falling social class. The ‘material paradox’ that young people
from poorer backgrounds have more money in their pockets than their richer
counterparts has to be understood within a context of class and consumer culture.

Introduction
Reflecting its core position in sociology, particularly perspectives of Marxist or
materialist persuasion, a voluminous literature exists on the social distribution of
income and wealth (Hills 1996). In relation to youth, however, and especially young

Correspondence to: Professor Patrick West, Medical Research Council, Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, 4
Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK. Email: patwest@msoc.mrc.gla.ac.uk. The authors thank Daniel Wight,
Sally Macintyre and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Acknowledgements are also due to the young people, teachers, schools, nurse interviewers, and all those
from the MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit involved in the study. The authors are supported financially
by the Medical Research Council of Great Britain.

ISSN 1367-6261 (print)/ISSN 1469-9680 (online) # 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13676260600805739
 438 P. West et al.

people who have yet to enter the labour market, the sociology, psychology and even
economics of money has been a largely neglected subject (Furnham & Argyle 1998;
Lewis & Scott 2003; Barnet-Verzat & Wolff 2002). This is particularly so in relation to
the key question of the social distribution of personal income in youth, the prevalent
(materialist) assumption being that, as with adults, young people from more
advantaged social backgrounds have higher disposable incomes than those who are
more disadvantaged. Thus, Middleton and Ashworth write: ‘It is assumed that an
individual family member shares the same standards of living as the family as a whole
and, therefore, children’s living standards mirror those of their parents’ (1998,
p. 118). While the assumption might have some validity for later youth, notably in
relation to labour market position (Furlong & Cartmel 1997), it may be less true in
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

childhood and adolescence. This paper, which focuses on earlier youth (age 11
15),
tests this hypothesis by examining the social distribution of personal income in the
form of pocket money, allowances or other sources such as part-time work by
reference to parental socioeconomic status.
Plausible though the materialist assumption is, the economics of transactions
between parents and children are not those of the market (Furnham & Argyle 1998),
being complicated by a number of factors. One of these refers to parental (class-
based) value systems that may underpin different economic socialisation practices,
those of higher socioeconomic status, for example, more often emphasising future-
oriented goals (for example, Mortimore et al. 1994). In a British context, such
differences bear comparison with the traditional distinction between the middle-class
values of ‘deferred gratification’ and working-class values of ‘immediate gratification’
(for example, Hoggart 1957; Klein 1967). A second factor refers to the possibility of
compensation for family poverty, parents sacrificing their own needs for the sake of
their children (for example, Middleton et al. 1997). Thirdly, and related, it is
important to consider the demands children and young people themselves place on
parents (for example, Lyle 1994). Finally, and possibly of most significance, the
impact of each of these factors has to be considered within the context of consumer
culture and the pressures it exerts on both parents and young people alike. In
contemporary society, a burgeoning youth market, together with evidence of
widespread consumerism among children and young people (Mayhew et al. 2004;
Schor 2004; Mayo 2005), appears to have increased the agency of young consumers at
the expense (sic) of their parents (Middleton et al. 1994). Any one or all of these
factors has the potential to impact on the transfer of money between parents and
children, thereby posing a challenge to a materialist hypothesis.

Previous Evidence
We conducted a comprehensive search for references to young people’s income
and its social distribution in two stages; first, a scoping exercise of four databases
(GEOBASE, FIRST ARTICLE, ECONLIT and ERIC) using major keywords (pocket
money/allowances, wealth distribution and children/adolescent/teen); second, a
 Journal of Youth Studies 439

further search of WEB OF KNOWLEDGE and PSYCHINFO using an expanded

range of keywords (e.g., economic socialisation, social justice, work or household
work, children’s strategies, socioeconomic status, poverty/deprivation/inequality).
This confirmed that although the subject ranged across a number of disciplines, there
were very few relevant studies, testifying to the fact that this is a largely neglected area
of academic inquiry.
The search did, however, reveal the need to examine newspaper databases
(Newsbank and Newsline), which in turn identified a number of commercially
oriented reports and websites. From this, it became clear that the subject has not
escaped the notice of the marketing industry, which has an obvious interest in
monitoring trends in children’s and young people’s disposable income. For example,
in the UK, regular annual surveys of 5
16 year olds have been conducted for ‘Bird’s
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

Eye Walls’ (Walls 2004) since 1975, producing data on average weekly pocket money,
average handouts and (for 11
16 year olds) average weekly earnings from part-time
work. Similar surveys have been conducted for the Halifax Building Society (Halifax
plc 2004) since 1987 and by the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) for Mintel
(Mintel International Group 2005). The evidence from these sources is consistent in
pointing to a more or less continuous year-on-year increase in young people’s
disposable income, estimated to be double the rate of inflation since the late 1980s
(Halifax plc 2004). In the latest Halifax plc (2004) survey, among 7
16 year olds the
average weekly pocket money was £7.82, and among 12
16 year olds it was £9.15.
Within the UK, the highest amount of pocket money appears to be given in Scotland
(Halifax plc 2004; Walls 2004). As would be expected, both the amounts of pocket
money and money from other sources exhibit a regular increase with age. There is
some evidence that boys receive more pocket money than girls (Mintel International
Group 2005), although in general the gender differences are small (Furnham & Argyle
1998). As a market sector, children and young people represent a very significant
group indeed, a major growth sector in the UK, estimated as worth £30 billion in
2002 (Mayo 2005).

Socioeconomic Status
The sparse academic literature on young people’s income is almost entirely located
within a psychological tradition concerned with economic socialisation. The UK
research in this area is virtually synonymous with the name of Adrian Furnham. In
the first of a series of studies, Furnham and Thomas (1984a) specifically set out to
examine age, gender and social class differences in the distribution and use of pocket
money in a sample of 444 children aged 7
12 years. While predictable age differences
were found, there were almost no differences between boys and girls. In respect of
class, there was similarly no difference in the amount of pocket money received, the
regularity with which it was given nor with respect to saving, the only difference being
that ‘working-class’ children were more likely to report having to do domestic work
for their pocket money compared with their ‘middle-class’ counterparts. In a related
 440 P. West et al.

study of adults’ attitudes towards pocket money (Furnham & Thomas 1984b),
‘middle-class’ adults were found to be more supportive of the principle of pocket
money and its introduction at an earlier age, but no class differences were observed in
respect of recommended amounts of money. However, in a more recent study of 401
adults (mainly parents), Furnham (1999a) found almost no class differences in
attitudes but a significant inverse relationship with the actual amount given by
parents to their first-born and second-born children; the higher the class, the less
the allowance. Similar inconsistent results were obtained in two further studies of
children (Furnham 1999b) and parents (Furnham 2001), the latter including a
battery of measures of ‘individual’ characteristics (e.g., pocket money rules, parental
liberalism) together with a wider range of socioeconomic variables (including
parental income). The author concluded that the failure ‘to demonstrate clear and
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

strong links between all the participant demographic and psychographic variables
begs the question as to what are the primary determinants of parental pocket-money-
allowance attitudes’ (Furnham 2001, p. 419).
Apart from Furnham’s pioneering efforts, there is other evidence on the issue,
some of which is consistent with a materialist hypothesis. In an impressive
econometric study of 5300 French households in 1992, Barnet-Verzat and Wolff
(2002) examined parental practices and motives in relation to their children’s (aged
6
25) pocket money, and variations by socioeconomic status. The investigators
found a direct relationship between both the likelihood of receiving pocket money
and the amount received and household income, social class and parental education,
the strongest predictor (household income) exhibiting a ‘positive, monotonic and
highly significant’ (Barnet-Verzat & Wolff 2002, p. 351) effect in a multivariate model.
The effect was stronger for irregular than regular payments, the principal motive for
all transfers being altruism rather than exchange of services (e.g., domestic chores) or
rewards (e.g., for school work). Since interaction effects were not reported, it is not
possible to know whether these relationships varied by age; but the amounts received
increased considerably after school-leaving, which suggests there might be a different
relationship in earlier and later youth.
Some supportive evidence for a direct relationship between socioeconomic status
and children’s allowances also comes from an earlier US study of 1000 ninth-graders
(Mortimore et al. 1994). The investigators found a significant relationship between
household income and the likelihood of ever, and currently, receiving pocket money
and length of time it had been received, but not with the actual amount of money.
The results are interpreted in terms of a theory of socialisation of economic values
(e.g., self-direction in work), parents of higher socioeconomic status being more in
favour of an allowance (e.g., to encourage responsible money practice) but not the
amount (e.g., to spend according to need). A rather similar conclusion was drawn by
Lewis and Scott (2003) in a smaller UK study of 205 parents’ economic practices in
relation to their children. In this case, however, while social class was directly related
to practices relating to money management (e.g., playing money games) and deferred
gratification (e.g., saving), it was not associated with giving children pocket money.
 Journal of Youth Studies 441

Thus, while there is some evidence of altruistic transfer of money from parents to
children in accordance with the materialist hypothesis, there is also the suggestion
that the relationship is more complex and may be mediated by class-related values.
Contrasting with studies showing either a direct relationship between social class
and young people’s disposable income, or no relationship at all, are a small number of
others suggesting the reverse. Perhaps the earliest reference to the possibility of an
inverse relationship between social class and pocket money is Marshall and
Magruder’s (1960) study of family money management practices in 500 US families.
Among a plethora of findings relating to money knowledge and attitudes of 7

12 year olds, the authors reported an inverse relationship between socioeconomic
status and (last week) money among seven-year-old and eight-year-old boys only (the
finding did not extend to older boys nor girls of any age). Rather more persuasive
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

evidence was reported by Newson and Newson (1976) in their study of 700 British
seven year-olds, which collected data on pocket money and other ‘earned’ income
from domestic work. While there were no class differences in respect of earned
income, middle-class children received less pocket money than their working-class
peers, but saved more, a result the authors interpreted in terms of traditional class
values of deferred and immediate gratification. In a later Australian study of 133
families, Feather (1991) reported an inverse relationship between social class and the
amount of money received by the youngest (but not next youngest) child. Such
inconsistency in findings again underscores how weak the academic evidence base is
in this area.
Some data on the relationship between social class and young people’s income are
also available from marketing agencies, although neither the Walls Monitor nor the
Halifax surveys, which report variations by age, gender and region, do so by class. In
the most recent Mintel Report (Mintel International Group 2005), based on BMRB’s
survey of some 2000 11
14 year olds in 2004, the average weekly income (from
pocket money, money for chores and regular part-time jobs) for those from lower
(C2DE) social classes was very slightly greater than those from higher (ABC1) classes
(£7.41 compared with £7.20). This difference, however, was offset by additional
monies from parents and gifts from relatives (calculated over the course of a year).
Ownership of savings accounts was also directly related to class.

Poverty Indicators
This far, the evidence on the social distribution of young people’s disposable income
has focused on its relationship with social class and (less frequently) other measures of
socioeconomic status such as household income. Another source of evidence refers to
lone-parent families who, on any assessment, are one of the most disadvantaged groups
in society (for example, Ford & Millar 1998). Here, the results from both academic and
market research sources are generally more consistent. With respect to the former,
Mortimore et al. (1994) found children in ‘non-traditional’ families were more likely to
receive pocket money (the authors do not refer to amounts) while Barnet-Verzat and
 442 P. West et al.

Wolff (2002) found those in single or divorced parental households were more likely
to receive pocket money and higher amounts than those with married parents. Not
all studies have found such differences, however; one US study (Doss et al. 1995)
specifically designed to examine the ‘family structure’ hypothesis finding no significant
difference in either total mean income or income for specific purposes (e.g., allowances,
errand money, and earnings) between children (age 10
14) in single-parent and
single-earner and dual-earner two-parent households. With respect to market research,
the evidence from UK sources is more conclusive, children in one-parent families
receiving the highest weekly income of all subgroups (Mintel International Group
2005), summed up in the provocative ’headline’ accompanying the previous year’s
results: ‘Children of single parents rake it in’ (UK Market Intelligence 2004).
The particular significance of the lone-parent family as an exemplar of poverty, and
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

the consequences for children, has been examined in a series of interlinked studies in
the UK combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Middleton et al.
1994, 1997; Middleton & Ashworth 1998; Shropshire & Middleton 1999). As part
of the ‘Small Fortunes Survey’, comprising 1239 British families, 435 children (aged
6
16) in lone-parent and two-parent families provided information about pocket
money and other earnings, perceptions of family circumstances, expectations, wants
and influence of peers (Shropshire & Middleton 1999). The survey found that the
majority (75 per cent) received pocket money, and while there was some variation by
family structure in the regularity with which it was given, children in lone-parent
families were given more. Similar results were found by reference to a measure of
family poverty (Income Support), both overall and within family structure, poorer
children reporting more pocket money and additional money (e.g., for snacks).
Furthermore, among 11
16 year olds, while those in lone-parent families and on
Income Support were less likely to have a part-time job, their overall earnings
exceeded those of their counterparts in two-parent families, and those not receiving
benefits. This occurred because, although working in lower paid jobs, young people
in lone-parent families and on Income Support worked longer hours. Interestingly,
despite their higher income, young people in these situations appeared to be aware of
their family’s relative poverty, which to some extent at least limited their demands
(e.g., asking for cheaper birthday presents). In this way, the authors believed, young
people in such families ‘learn to be poor’, although it is not entirely clear how such a
perception squared with their higher disposable income.
The paradoxical finding that children in poorer families appeared to be better-off
than their counterparts in more affluent families was further reinforced by data on
expenditure provided by parents in the same study (Middleton et al. 1997; Middleton
& Ashworth 1998). Based on a budgetary diary, involving weekly spending on items
such as food, clothes, school and activities, overall expenditure on secondary
schoolchildren varied only slightly by social class but was generally higher for children
in lone-parent families and those on Income Support, spending on birthdays, holidays
and excursions being significant exceptions. The explanation for this paradox, the
authors argued, lay in the widespread practice of parental sacrifice, particularly among
 Journal of Youth Studies 443

mothers, and particularly those on Income Support. The effects of this were such
that, in a comparison of levels of poverty (based on the lack of necessities) between
children and parents, parents were assessed as being much poorer than their children.
The complexity of financial transactions between parents and children in families
generally, but in poorer families in particular, is further illustrated by findings from
the pilot study for the ‘Small Fortunes’ survey, involving focus groups with parents
and children from more and less affluent areas (Middleton et al. 1994). Very few
differences in children’s possession and wants were found between those from
different socioeconomic backgrounds, suggesting a widespread subscription to ‘a
common culture of acquisition’, routinely affirmed by advertising. Parents in both
affluent and less affluent areas were not only extremely aware of the associated
pressures to conform, particularly in relation to fashionable (branded) clothing, but
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

were preoccupied with the consequences for their child of being socially excluded.
Correspondingly, children used a range of strategies from polite negotiation to
begging and bribery to obtain additional money or possessions*demands all
parents, but particularly poorer parents, found hard to resist. A very similar
conclusion was drawn by Lyle (1994) in another study of children’s negotiations
with parents about money, which found that, regardless of social class, children
reported a range of ‘manipulative, self-centred practices designed to ‘‘get their own
way’’’ (p. 26). The results revealed children ‘exercising power over their parents’ (Lyle
1994, p. 22) rather than the other way around. In marketing jargon, this phenomenon
is widely referred to as ‘pester power’ (Mayo 2005).

Summary and Aims

To summarise, it is clear that the literature on the social distribution of young
people’s income has not produced a consistent pattern of findings. With respect to
social class, there are studies that lend support to the materialist hypothesis, but there
are equally others that have found little or no class differences, and still others that
suggest an inverse relationship. Given the wide variation in the historical, economic
and cultural contexts in which these studies have been conducted, each may be as
valid as the other, the results reflecting changes over time as well as differences in the
wider labour market (e.g., levels of parental unemployment) and/or national values.
It is also the case that studies vary considerably in the age range of children and
young people included in samples, some of which are small and unrepresentative, and
all of which are cross-sectional. The measure of social class used, which is typically
derived from children’s reports of parental occupation, and subject to very crude
categorisation, is acknowledged as a major limitation (Furnham 1999b). The
evidence in relation to family structure is more robust, on balance suggesting that
children and young people in lone-parent families have a higher disposable income
than those with two parents, a pattern that may also extend to families experiencing
poverty. This paradox appears to be explained on the one hand by considerable
parental sacrifice, and on the other by the demands made by children and young
 444 P. West et al.

people who are embedded in a culture of consumerism. The active image of the child
emerging from these studies is completely the opposite of that in the economic
socialisation literature, which has largely ignored the external reality of the market,
and particularly the impact of consumerism on young peoples’ attitudes and
practices in relation to obtaining money.
To our knowledge, although there are strong suggestions of a link, the relationship
between young people’s disposable income and consumer attitudes and possessions
has not yet been directly tested. Nor has such an analysis been placed within a wider
social context to examine the way young people’s social class might impact both
directly on consumer attitudes and possessions, and indirectly via the money they
receive from parents and/or from paid work of one kind or another. In framing the
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

issues within a wider class context, however, it is important to acknowledge that

parental contributions to a young person’s income (pocket money, etc.) are only one
type of parental expenditure on children, other investments (e.g., fees for education)
involving a longer timeframe. While investigation of such economic capital is beyond
the scope of this paper, following Bourdieu (1984), eventual financial benefits may be
discernible in the social distribution of cultural capital in early youth. Thus, Sullivan
(2001), in a study of 15 year olds, found a strong direct relationship between social
class and a measure of cultural capital, the single strongest predictor of educational
achievement (and presumably better, and better-paid jobs in the future) being
reading books. Such robust evidence in relation to the social distribution of cultural
capital stands in marked contrast to the inconsistent findings in relation to young
people’s disposable income.
Against this background, this paper utilises data from a longitudinal study of
young people in the West of Scotland, who were followed up in the relatively affluent
period of the mid to late 1990s, to address four questions. Firstly, what is the
relationship between young people’s disposable income (pocket money and other
sources) and household social class? Secondly, what is its relationship with other
measures of socioeconomic status, specifically material deprivation and three
commonly used indicators of disadvantage comprising family structure, parental
working status and a measure of poverty (Income Support)? Thirdly, what is the
relationship between consumerism (as indicated by attitudes and consumer
possessions) and, respectively, social class and disposable income, and to what extent
are they independent of each other? Fourthly, what is the relationship between social
class, income and ‘cultural capital’ (as indicated by the possession of books), and how
does this differ from the social distribution of consumerism?

Methods
Sample and Design
Data are derived from the ‘West of Scotland 11 to 16 Study’ (West & Sweeting 1996).
This is a longitudinal school-based study of a cohort of young people resident in the
 Journal of Youth Studies 445

Central Clydeside Conurbation (CCC), a predominantly urban area centred around

Glasgow. The cohort was first surveyed, aged 11, in the final year of primary school in
1994 and followed up in secondary schools on two occasions, aged 13 in 1996 and
aged 15 at the end of statutory education in 1999. Full details of the sample design are
available elsewhere (Ecob et al. 1996), but briefly it comprised all pupils (n2793)
/

transferring from randomly selected primary schools into 43 secondary schools, pre-
selected to be representative of the CCC. Of the issued sample, 2586 (93 per cent)
participated in the baseline (age 11) survey, with 86 per cent of parents also
completing a questionnaire. By age 13, sample losses reduced the number of
participants to 2371 (85 per cent), further reducing to 2196 (79 per cent) at age 15. At
baseline, the sample was representative of the gender and social class composition of
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

11 year olds in the CCC (Sweeting et al. 2001). Thereafter, differential attrition made
the sample less representative, losses being greater among particular subgroups,
including those from lower social classes. To compensate for these biases, a weighting
scheme was derived, the effect of which is to elevate prevalence estimates of certain
behavioural outcomes (for example, West et al. 2003). However, it has a negligible
effect on any of the analyses presented here, and, in consequence, unweighted data are
used.

Measures
Throughout the course of the study, data were collected via self-complete ques-
tionnaires, administered in exam-type conditions, supplemented by mini-interviews
conducted by research nurses. Although the study was predominantly health focused,
a very broad range of issues were covered, including those of relevance to this paper.

Personal income
Data on participants’ own income are available in each of the three waves of the
study, but the questions differed between waves. At age 11, respondents were asked:
‘How about money? Do you get any: (a) pocket money, (b) money for doing a job,
and (c) Altogether, how much money do you get each week (pounds and pence)?’ At
age 13, the question about sources of money broadened, principally to incorporate
income earned from a paid job outside the home. The question about the amount of
money referred to an overall total, this time with an explicit instruction to exclude
necessary items of expenditure. Thus, ‘How about money, do you get any: (a) pocket
money, (b) money for doing jobs around the house, (c) money from a regular job,
(d) any other money (specify), and (e) Altogether, how much money do you get each
week to SPEND ON YOURSELF (So DON’T INCLUDE dinner or bus money)?’ At
age 15, the format changed again, the focus being on the amount of money obtained
from three sources. Thus, ‘How about money, write in how much you get from these
each week: (a) pocket money, (b) money for doing jobs around the house, and (c)
money from a regular paid job’.
 446 P. West et al.

Although this change in question wording means there is not consistent data on
source and amount of income at each wave, the following measures are available: (1)
receipt of any income and total amount of income (all waves); (2) receipt of pocket
money (all waves), money for doing any job (probably mainly domestic jobs) (age
11), and money for doing a domestic job and work outside the home (ages 13 and
15); and (3) the amount of money obtained from pocket money, domestic jobs and
external jobs (age 15 only). For some (age 15) analyses, where income is an
independent variable, income quartiles are used.
Some additional data are available at age 15 about when external work was
undertaken (weekdays/weekends and time of day), enabling the construction of a
variable representing volume of work (one job, two jobs, three or more jobs), but this
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

is not a measure of hours worked.

Consumerism
This is represented by data on attitudes and possessions, both available only at age 15.
In respect of attitudes, respondents were presented with a battery of 32 Likert-type
items indicative of underlying value dimensions, with five standard ([strongly] agree/
disagree and neither) response categories. Most of these items were drawn from a
variety of sources, including the ESRC’s ‘16
19’ Initiative (Bynner 1993), to indicate
different underlying values, but none featured consumerism. Accordingly, two new
items were developed to reflect this dimension: (1) ‘having a personalised number
plate on your car is a good way to show how well you’re doing’ (35 per cent agree),
and (2) ‘there’s nothing wrong in owning a big house or an expensive car’ (87 per
cent agree). A simple score was constructed from the sum of these two items (range
2
10), a score of 8 (39 per cent) indicating a ‘high’ consumerist attitude. In respect
/

of possessions, specific items were selected from those used in Livingstone and
Bovill’s (1999) research on young people’s use of media, in particular emphasising
personal (bedroom) use rather than that available to the family as a whole. Thus
respondents were asked which of the following possessions they had in their
bedroom: personal stereo/walkman, books, television, stereo/CD player, video,
personal computer, cable or satellite TV, and telephone. Building on the marketer’s
concept of ‘early adopters’ (Everett 1995), three of these (video, cable and telephone),
representing ‘newer’ acquisitions at the time, were combined into a single index
termed ‘new consumer’ possessions. Twenty-five per cent of respondents owned
two or more of these ‘new’ possessions, and are labelled ‘high’ consumers. This
index is contrasted with the single item, representing cultural capital, possession of
books.

Socioeconomic status
Several socioeconomic status measures are available, although unfortunately not
household income. Social class is based on information about parental occupation
 Journal of Youth Studies 447

derived mainly from parents themselves at baseline or, in the absence of a par-
ental questionnaire or missing occupational data, from reports provided by their
11-year-old children, which we have found to be reliable (West et al. 2001). All
occupations were coded to the standard Registrar General’s classification (Office of
Population Census and Surveys 1990), from which a measure of the social class of the
head of household is derived, defined as father’s current or previous occupation if not
currently employed or, in the absence of a father figure, the mother’s current or
previous occupation. The full six-fold classification is used. Deprivation is based on
information about residential postcode provided by participants at each age. Coded
according to the Carstairs and Morris (1991) scheme, this produces seven area
deprivation categories (DEPCAT 1 [least deprived] to DEPCAT 7 [most deprived]).
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

In the absence of data on household income, three other measures commonly used as
indicators are available at one or more waves of the study: (1) Family structure (all
waves), distinguishing between families with both birth parents, step families and
lone-parent families; (2) Parental working status (ages 11 and 15), divided into both
parents working, one of two parents working, neither of two parents working, lone
parent working and lone parent not working; and (3) Means tested benefits (age 11),
derived from the parental questionnaire, and distinguishing levels of poverty defined
as ‘high’ (on Income Support), ‘medium’ (any of Family Credit, Housing Benefit,
Council Tax Rebate, Free School Meals and Clothing Grant, but not Income Support)
and ‘low’ (no means tested benefits). The first category (Income Support) is widely
used as an indicator of poverty.

Analysis
Two types of analysis are presented. The first refers to univariate associations between
socioeconomic status measures and income sources and (mean) income amounts,
the former tested by the significance of the chi-squared for trend, the latter by the
significance of the F-statistic, which for ordinal variables (social class and
deprivation) is the test for linearity. The second refers to a series of logistic
regressions that model the independent effects of social class, income and gender on
consumer attitude and consumer possessions (both dichotomised into high/rest),
and books, representing the effects as odds ratios relative to a reference category. All
analyses were conducted using SPSS.

Results
Reflecting the ethnic composition of the population of the CCC, the proportion
of participants of minority ethnic status in the sample is very small (five per cent), of
which by far the largest group (82 per cent) are those of South Asian (Pakistani or
Indian) descent. Although there are some differences between South Asians and
the majority white group in respect of sources of income (the former being
significantly less likely to receive pocket money at age 11 and money for domestic
 448 P. West et al.

work at any age), there are no differences in the total amount of personal income at
any age. These patterns apply equally to both sexes. Since income amount is the
major focus of the analysis, the results are presented for the total sample.
Table 1 presents the basic descriptive statistics of the income data in the sample;
specifically, sources of income (percentage) and mean income (standard deviation) of
11, 13 and 15 year olds by gender. At age 11, almost all (96 per cent) respondents
reported getting some money, the great majority (89 per cent) pocket money and
50 per cent (more males than females) additional money from doing a job. The
overall total income was £4.47, with no significant gender difference. At age 13,
virtually everyone (99 per cent) reported some income, the majority (90 per cent)
again from pocket money, over one-half (53 per cent) for doing jobs around the
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

house and one-quarter (23 per cent) each from a paid external job and other money
(mainly relatives). Females were significantly more likely to get money for doing
domestic jobs, males for doing external work, but there was no gender difference in
the overall total income (£8.54). At age 15, although the percentage receiving any
income fell slightly, the great majority (96 per cent) had some income, 86 per cent

Table 1 Sources of income (per cent) and mean income by gender at ages 11, 13 and 15.
Males Females Total

Age 11
Pocket money 89.7 88.3 89.1
Job money 53.0 47.0** 50.1
Any money 96.7 96.2 96.4
Total money, mean (standard £4.56 (4.10) £4.38 (4.16) £4.47 (4.13)
deviation)
Age 13
Pocket money 89.1 90.9 90.0
Home job money 49.9 55.7** 52.7
External job money 27.0 18.5*** 22.9
Other money 22.5 23.8 23.1
Any money 99.2 98.9 99.0
Total money, mean (standard £8.78 (6.97) £8.30 (6.57) £8.54 (6.78)
deviation)
Age 15
Pocket money 84.9 87.8* 86.3
Home job money 30.4 37.8*** 34.0
External job money 33.4 32.4 32.9
Any money 95.6 96.4 96.0
Total money, mean (standard £15.94 (16.21) £15.13 (12.90) £15.54 (14.68)
deviation)
Pocket money, mean (standard £8.42 (5.72) £8.63 (5.46) £8.53 (5.59)
deviation)
Home job money, mean (standard £5.76 (5.97) £5.05 (3.84) £5.37 (4.93)
deviation)
External money, mean (standard £20.85 (19.67) £17.54 **(13.33) £19.26 (16.98)
deviation)

Significance of male
female difference: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

 Journal of Youth Studies 449

still receiving pocket money. The percentage getting money for domestic work also
fell to one-third (34 per cent), females remaining significantly more likely than males
to obtain money from this source. The number of respondents earning an income
from an external job, however, increased to 33 per cent, there being no significant
gender difference at this age. There was also no significant gender difference in total
income, over one-half of the overall total (£15.54) coming from pocket money
(£8.53). Much greater amounts were earned by respondents working outside the
home, males earning significantly more than females.

Socioeconomic Status
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

Table 2 presents the relationship between sources of income and social class at ages
11, 13 and 15 for both genders combined (the patterns for males and females being
very similar). There are no significant differences between classes at any age in the
percentage receiving pocket money, and only minor variation in the receipt of any
money. However, the percentage receiving money for domestic jobs increases with
falling social class at ages 13 and 15, a pattern that also probably applies at age 11. An
inverse trend is also seen with respect to external work at age 13, although this does
not extend to 15. Overall, excepting the greater tendency for manual respondents to
obtain some income from domestic work, class differences in sources of income are
relatively slight.
The relationships between social class and total mean income at each age, together
with the amounts obtained from pocket money and domestic and external work at
age 15, are shown in Figure 1. In contrast to the picture for sources of income, the

Table 2 Sources of income (per cent) by (age 11) social class at ages 11, 13 and 15.
Social class

I II IIIn IIIm IV V

Age 11
Pocket 87.4 86.3 88.5 90.5 89.1 90.2
Job 44.4 44.6 49.7 52.6 50.2 47.6*
Any 94.1 94.6 96.9 97.2 96.5 97.0*
Age 13
Pocket 92.2 91.0 89.7 90.4 90.4 83.9
Home 49.2 47.9 51.7 55.6 54.7 56.3**
External 11.8 18.6 22.8 25.1 25.3 27.3***
Other 15.5 21.2 25.7 23.5 22.2 25.4
Any 98.4 98.7 99.3 99.3 99.5 97.9
Age 15
Pocket 89.6 82.0 87.7 88.7 86.3 80.3
Home 32.0 29.1 29.6 34.0 39.1 40.2**
External 28.7 35.3 31.3 35.0 34.6 29.4
Any 96.0 93.1 96.5 97.6 97.0 94.5*

Significance of x2 test for trend: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

 450 P. West et al.
Figure 1a

18

16 **

14 15

12

10
***
£s
8
13
6
***
4 11
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

0
I II IIIn IIIm IV V

Social class

Figure 1b
25

***
20

15 external

£s

10
pocket

domestic *
5

0
I II IIIn IIIm IV V

Social class

Figure 1 (a) Mean income (£s) by social class at ages 11, 13 and 15. (b) Mean income
(£s) from pocket money, domestic and external work by social class at age 15. Significance
of linear F-test: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

overall pattern of findings for mean income exhibits a remarkably consistent,

statistically significant, inverse relationship with class at each age. Thus, at age
11 income rises steadily from social class 1 (£2.82) to class IV (£4.99) with a slight fall
in class V (£4.75). At age 13 a similar pattern is observed, mean income rising
consistently from the lowest in class I (£5.64) to the highest in class V (£9.18). At age
15, although the pattern is less even, the inverse relationship is still apparent, this time
rising from the lowest in class I (£11.67) to the highest in class IV (£17.97), thereafter
exhibiting a fall in class V (£15.45).
 Journal of Youth Studies 451

With respect to mean income obtained from different sources at age 15, the pattern
is essentially similar. For pocket money, although the gradient is in the same direction
(class I lowest [£7.36], class V highest [£9.02]), it is not statistically significant. A less
clear (but significant) relationship is observed for income from domestic work. The
strongest inverse relationship, however, occurs in respect of income earned from
external work, the lowest mean income for class I (£12.62) rising to a peak in class IV
(£24.71), with a fall thereafter in class V (£20.11). The lower mean income from
external work in class V is the main reason for their lower overall total income relative
to class IV, although it is still higher than any other group. Interestingly, despite the
inverse class gradient in earnings from external work, and despite a clear relationship
between volume of work and earnings (one job, £15.20; two jobs, £26.51; three or
more jobs, £33.51), there is very little evidence that 15 year olds from lower social
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

classes had more jobs than those from higher classes (results not shown). Thus, the
overall pattern of results is that regardless of source, young people from lower social
classes report having more personal income than their peers from higher classes.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between personal income and another measure of
socioeconomic status, area deprivation. The pattern for total mean income at each
age, if anything, exhibits an even more consistent inverse relationship than with social
class. This is most pronounced at age 11, when those in the most deprived area
(DEPCAT 7 [£6.17]) received double the amount of those in the least (DEPCAT 1
[£2.97]). This difference is reduced at age 13, and reduced still further at age 15, but
the inverse relationship remains highly significant at both ages. With regard to money
from different sources at age 15, the pattern is somewhat different to that observed
for social class in that there is no significant relationship for income from domestic
work. By contrast, both in respect of mean income from pocket money and from
external work, a highly significant inverse relationship is found. Thus, in all major
respects, the findings for deprivation are similar to those for social class, and together
provide convincing evidence for an inverse relationship between young people’s
personal income and socioeconomic status.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between mean personal income and each of the
three indicators of household income, family structure (ages 11, 13 and 15), parental
working status (ages 11 and 15), and poverty as measured by the receipt of means
tested benefits (age 11). In respect of family structure, the results show a significantly
higher mean income among respondents in lone-parent compared with two-parent
birth or reconstituted families at both 11 and 13 years of age. At age 15 there is no
significant difference between the three family types. With respect to parental
working status, at age 11 a significant inverse trend is observed; those in families with
both parents working receiving the least (£4.10), those with neither of two parents
working the most (£5.28). At age 15 there is no significant relationship between
personal income and parental working status. Finally, with respect to the most direct
indicator of poverty, a similar inverse gradient is observed; 11 year olds in families not
on any means tested benefit receiving the least (£3.97), those on Income Support
(high poverty) receiving the most (£5.09). These differences complement those found
 452 P. West et al.

Figure 2a
18 **
16
15
14

12
***
10
£s
8
13 ***
6

4 11
2
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Area deprivation (DEPCAT)

Figure 2b
25 ***

20

external
15

£s
***
10 pocket

domestic
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Area deprivation (DEPCAT)

Figure 2 (a) Mean income (£s) by area deprivation category at ages 11, 13 and 15. (b)
Mean income (£s) from pocket money, domestic and external work by area deprivation
category aged 15. Significance of linear F-test: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

for social class and deprivation, but they are not as large, and at age 15 are absent.
However, they are more direct measures of household income and, particularly at
younger ages, testify to the robustness of the inverse relationship between young
people’s personal income and socioeconomic status.

Consumerism
We next turn to a consideration of the wider context within which young people’s
personal income is located, beginning with an examination of the relationship
 Journal of Youth Studies 453
Family Structure Parents working Poverty
16 16 16
14 14 14
11 12 12 12
10 10 10
£s 8 ** £s 8 *** £s 8 ***
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
2 birth step lone
2/2 1/2 1/1 0/1 0/2 low med high
16
13 14
12 *
10
£s 8
6
4
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

2
0
2 birth step lone

16
16
14
14
15 12 12
10 10
£s 8 £s 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
2/2 1/2 1/1 0/1 0//2
2 birth step lone

Figure 3 Mean income (£s) according to family structure, parents working status and
poverty. Significance of x2 test: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

between social class and consumerism as represented by attitudes and personal

possessions. The findings, which refer to age 15 only, are presented in Table 3.
Overall (right-hand column), the sample is characterised by a high level of
consumerism both in respect of attitudes and possessions. A large majority
of respondents reported having a stereo, walkman, TV and books in their bedroom,
while a significant minority had the ‘new consumer’ possessions (video, telephone or
cable) together with a PC. The relationship with social class varies both between the
attitude and possessions dimensions, and between types of possessions. With respect
to attitudes, no relationship was found with social class, respondents in each class
being equally consumerist in their views. With respect to possessions, the dominant
pattern is one of an inverse relationship with class, ownership of almost all consumer
items increasing with falling social class. This pattern is summarised in the findings
for ‘new consumer’ possessions, respondents in class V (35 per cent) being almost
three times as likely to own one or more of them than those in class I (13 per cent).
The main exception to this occurs in respect of books (and to some extent a PC),
ownership of which decreases in linear fashion with falling social class. This aside, the
main patterns in the data are respectively, the independence of consumer attitudes
 454 P. West et al.

Table 3 Consumerism (attitudes and possessions, per cent) at age 15 by (age 11) social
class.
Social class

I II IIIn IIIm IV V Total

Consumerist attitude (high) 37.6 40.3 36.5 38.9 40.2 34.1 39.0
Possessions
Stereo 95.2 95.2 97.2 97.4 96.7 98.4* 96.6
Walkman 88.0 88.3 88.0 86.7 87.4 79.5 86.7
TV 62.4 78.4 86.3 91.3 94.6 93.7*** 86.2
Video 26.4 39.8 57.4 64.3 66.1 66.1*** 55.6
PC 27.2 28.4 27.8 30.0 20.2 20.5* 26.3
Telephone 15.2 19.5 19.8 25.4 21.3 28.3** 22.2
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

Cable 8.8 15.1 19.1 27.0 25.6 23.6*** 21.1

New consumer (high) 12.8 17.2 23.6 31.6 30.4 34.6*** 25.7
Books 93.6 90.4 87.0 79.9 77.8 68.3*** 82.7

Significance of x2 test for trend: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

from social class together with the greater ownership of consumer possessions among
young people in lower social classes.
Table 4 presents the same set of results according to young people’s total income
(categorised into quartiles). In general, and contrasting with the findings for social
class, there is greater consistency in the patterns for attitudes and possessions, each
exhibiting a similar relationship with personal income. This is particularly so with
respect to the attitude dimension, the percentage with strong (‘high’) consumerist
views increasing directly with income. With respect to possessions, the percentage

Table 4 Consumerism (attitudes and possessions, per cent) by personal income

(quartiles) at age 15.
Personal income

£5 or less /£5
£10 /£10
£20 /£20

Consumerist attitude (high) 30.8 38.3 42.2 45.9***

Possessions
Stereo 93.8 97.4 97.4 97.3**
Walkman 80.8 86.7 88.4 90.1***
TV 77.6 85.6 88.4 92.6***
Video 48.6 53.5 57.0 63.1***
PC 22.7 25.0 27.5 30.8**
Telephone 13.9 17.7 24.7 33.9***
Cable 13.1 17.1 24.6 31.4***
New consumer (high) 16.2 20.1 29.4 39.5***
Books 87.0 82.7 82.5 80.0**

Significance of x2 test for trend: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

 Journal of Youth Studies 455

owning each of the consumer items, together with a PC, also increases directly with
increasing personal income, a relationship especially evident in the ownership of ‘new
consumer’ goods. These patterns are also seen with respect to sources of income
(results not shown), consumerism (attitudes and possessions) increasing with greater
amounts of pocket money, money from domestic work and external earnings. The
only exception to this trend is (again) books, ownership being more likely among
respondents with least money. Interestingly, this relationship holds only for pocket
money, income from both domestic and external work being unrelated. These results
strongly suggest that while young people’s income is a major determinant of
consumerism, class-based values are also a factor.
Table 5 presents several logistic regressions on consumerist attitude (‘high’), ‘new
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

consumer’ possessions (‘high’) and books. Three models are shown for each, all
controlling for gender; the first showing odds by social class only, the second by
income only, and the third with both entered. There is a significant gender difference
in both consumer attitudes and possessions (males being more consumerist), which
does not extend to books. The results for social class and personal income confirm
the univariate findings.
Considering first consumerist attitude, while model 1 shows that this is unrelated
to social class, model 2 shows a highly significant relationship with personal income,
the odds of consumerism increasing with higher income. Model 3 shows that the
effect of income is unaltered when social class is controlled for. With respect to
consumer possessions, a different pattern is observed. In this case, model 1 shows a
strong inverse relationship with social class (the odds of ownership increasing with
falling class), while model 2 shows an equally strong direct relationship with income.
Model 3 reveals that each has an independent effect; that of class being slightly
modified, and that of income slightly strengthened. The results for books present a
complete contrast. Model 1 shows that the odds of having books decreases with
falling social class; model 2 that increasing income decreases ownership. In model 3,
the social class effect remains unaltered, and, while the overall effect of income
becomes non-significant, ownership of books remains significantly less likely in the
two highest income categories. Overall, the results show that personal income, but
not social class, matters for consumer attitudes, while both matter for consumer
possessions. The contrasting class pattern for consumer possessions and books
highlights the importance of class-based values

Conclusion
This paper has presented evidence about one mundane, but crucial, dimension of
young people’s experience, the sources and amount of personal income, and specifically
its social distribution. A simple materialist hypothesis would hold that a young person’s
income mirrors that of the household, those in families of lower socioeconomic status
(lower social class, greater material deprivation or greater poverty) receiving and/or
earning less than their richer peers. Plausible though the hypothesis appears, it ignores
 456 P. West et al.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

Table 5 Consumer attitude, consumer possessions and books (odds) by social class (age 11), income (quartiles) and gender.
Consumerist attitude (high) New consumer (high) Books

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Gender
Female 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Male 2.31*** 2.35*** 2.39*** 1.53*** 1.44*** 1.49*** 0.80 0.86 0.82
Social class
Overall significance NS NS *** *** *** ***
I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
II 1.10 0.99 1.40 1.33 0.65 0.61
IIIn 0.96 0.86 2.12* 2.04* 0.46 0.45
IIIm 1.08 0.95 3.20*** 3.03*** 0.27** 0.26**
IV 1.13 1.01 3.03*** 2.78*** 0.24*** 0.24**
V 0.85 0.77 3.65*** 3.62*** 0.15*** 0.13***
Income
Overall significance *** *** *** *** * NS
£5 or less 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
More than £5 to £10 1.45** 1.43*** 1.31 1.36 0.71* 0.73
More than £10 to £20 1.71*** 1.75*** 2.18*** 2.34*** 0.71* 0.68*
More than £20 1.94*** 2.01*** 3.38*** 3.46*** 0.60** 0.62*
Sample size (n ) 2042 2132 2000 2056 2145 2013 2053 2142 2010

Significance of x2 test for trend: *p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.

 Journal of Youth Studies 457

both the way class-based value systems impact on money exchanges between parents
and children and the psychological impact of relative poverty on poorer parents who
may compensate for their own situation by transferring relatively greater amounts to
their children. It also ignores the pervasive influence of the youth consumer market,
which may impact more strongly on young people in poorer families, and who in
consequence place greater demands on parents (Middleton et al. 1994; Mayo 2005).
Any or all of these factors could affect the way in which young people’s income, together
with consumer attitudes and possessions, are socially distributed.
The evidence from the 11
16 study amply testifies to the fact that, in
contemporary society, young people wield considerable consumer power. Almost
all respondents received an income, mainly from pocket money, which increased
progressively from age 11 through to age 15. Reflecting a continuing trend observed
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

in UK pocket money surveys (Walls 2004; Halifax plc 2004) for Scottish children to
receive more money than elsewhere, the mean total incomes in the 11
16 sample at
each age were consistently higher than those reported in surveys of comparable age
groups in the same year. In general, and in common with most studies (Furnham &
Argyle 1998; Walls 2004; Mintel International Group 2005), there were no gender
differences in total income at any age, but traditional gender divisions were apparent
with respect to sources of income, females being more likely to do domestic jobs, and
males to have an external job (age 13) and earn more from it (age 15).
The extent to which this level of personal income is only one expression of
consumerism among young people is also seen in the evidence about personal
possessions at age 15. At the time of the survey (1999), the great majority reported
having a TV, stereo, walkman and books in their bedroom, over one-half a video, and
a significant minority reported cable TV, a personal computer and telephone. These
findings complement those of other studies conducted around this time (Livingstone
& Bovill 1999; Shropshire & Middleton 1999). Since then, ownership of these
possessions has increased; for example in the BMRB survey of 11
14 year olds in
2004, 64 per cent had a video/DVD in their bedroom, 77 per cent a TV, 80 per cent a
mobile phone and 93 per cent a computer at home (Mintel International Group
2005). This is testimony to what Middleton et al. (1994) termed a ‘common culture
of acquisition’, and to Mayo’s assessment of such evidence more than 10 years later
that ‘British children are more consumer-oriented than their American counterparts’
(2005, p. 2). While it is evident that acquisition of such consumer goods may come
from a variety of sources (e.g., as presents), it is equally clear from 11
16 that there is
a connection between their ownership and personal income. Thus, with the
important exception of books, the likelihood of having each of the other possessions
increased directly with the amount of income, and for ‘new consumer’ possessions
this was true for pocket money, money earned from domestic jobs, and from external
work. Personal income is also strongly related to consumer attitudes, endorsement of
consumerism increasing directly with income earned from domestic and external
work (as well as pocket money), a finding that implies a strong element of individual
agency. The widespread consumerism, apparent in the interconnectedness between
 458 P. West et al.

attitudes, possessions and personal income, is the social and cultural context within
which the social distribution of personal income can best be understood.
Evidence on the relationship between personal income and socioeconomic status
in the 11
16 study overwhelmingly stacks up against a simple materialist hypothesis.
In general, there is remarkable similarity between the social classes at each age in the
proportion receiving any money, particularly pocket money. The main exception is a
tendency for money given in exchange for domestic work to increase with falling
social class, a pattern found in some other studies (for example, Furnham & Thomas
1984a). This also applies to earnings from external work at younger ages, but not at
age 15 when class differences appear to flatten out. With respect to income amount,
however, the evidence is unequivocal. There is a clear inverse relationship between
total income and social class at each age, the only disruption to a linear pattern being
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

a slight downturn in mean income between classes IV and V at ages 11 and 15 (but
not age 13). A similar inverse gradient occurs at age 15 in respect of each separate
source of income, weakest for pocket money, strongest for money earned from an
external job. This pattern is replicated even more clearly on another measure of
socioeconomic status, material deprivation. Thus, with the possible exception of the
class V downturn, the evidence is counter to the materialist hypothesis and is
consistent with those few British studies suggesting an inverse relationship (Newson
& Newson 1976; Furnham 1999a; Mintel International Group 2005).
A further test of the hypothesis, using a range of available indicators of
disadvantage, also provided counter evidence. One of these, widely referred to in
the literature as an exemplar of poverty (Ford & Millar 1998), refers to the lone-parent
family. Here, the evidence from other studies (Shropshire & Middleton 1999; Barnet-
Verzat & Wolff 2002; Mintel International Group 2005) is more consistent in finding
children in lone-parent families to have a higher personal income than those in two-
parent or reconstituted families. The evidence from 11
16 is consistent with this at
ages 11 and 13, but not at age 15 where no difference in total income was observed. A
similar change in pattern occurred in respect of parental working status; at age 11 the
lowest mean income occurred in two-parent families with both parents working, the
highest in families with neither parent working; at age 15 there were no differences.
Finally, and consistent with the findings of one other UK study (Shropshire &
Middleton 1999), 11 year olds in families on Income Support were found to have the
highest mean income. This is the strongest direct measure of household income in
the 11
16 study, and the finding testifies to the robustness of the inverse relation-
ship between socioeconomic status and young people’s personal income.
It is unfortunate that a ‘Benefits’ measure was not available at age 15 since it is at
this age that the relationship between income and family structure and parental
working status evens out. Why this occurs is uncertain, but it may reflect an age-
related change in the pattern of money transfers in families with a lone parent and/or
non-working parent(s), parental sacrifice of the sort documented in other studies (for
example, Middleton et al. 1997) being more apparent when children are younger,
reducing with age as expectations about their independence, and independent
 Journal of Youth Studies 459

earnings, increase. Since flattening out with age is less evident in respect of the
findings for social class and deprivation, it suggests that in lone-parent and workless
families, additional psychological factors are involved.
The question arises as to whether the inverse socioeconomic relationship is specific
to personal income or just one component of more general class-based value systems.
The evidence from 11
16 clearly shows that young people’s income is an
independent predictor of both consumer attitudes and possessions. In respect of
class, however, the relationship differs between these two dimensions, young people
from different social backgrounds being equally (and strongly) consumerist in their
attitudes. By contrast, ownership of all the consumer possessions, particularly newer
ones, increased with falling social class, similar findings being reported in other
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

studies (for example, Livingstone & Bovill 1999; Mayo 2005; Mintel International
Group 2005). Furthermore, although personal income marginally reduced the class
effect, young people in lower social classes were more likely to have these possessions
anyway. This implies that in addition to having greater purchasing power, especially
via their own earnings, young people in lower social classes acquire these possessions
via other means (e.g., presents), which reflect both their own and their parents’ class-
based (consumerist) values. Ownership of books represents the converse of this
picture, being not only more likely in higher social classes but less likely with greater
income. Interestingly, while these class relationships with personal possessions have,
as indicated, been documented in previous studies, what young people have in their
bedrooms is not necessarily the same as what is available in the home itself. In
Livingston and Bovill’s (1999) study of young people’s media use, while working-class
youth were more likely to have their own ‘screen entertainment media’ (TV, video,
etc.), these media were generally available at similar, or higher (particularly PCs),
levels in middle-class homes, and therefore subject to greater parental control.
The evidence, therefore, points up the importance of class-based values in
facilitating or inhibiting young people’s involvement in consumer culture, and
suggests greater involvement among those from lower classes both because of parental
values and parental money practices. Such differences in class values bear
considerable correspondence with the traditional depiction of working-class and
middle-class values as being oriented towards ‘immediate’ and ‘deferred gratification’
respectively (Hoggart 1957; Newson & Newson 1976). This would suggest that the
inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and young people’s income and
consumer possessions has existed for some considerable time, subject perhaps to
fluctuations in the wider labour market. An alternative explanation, however, is that
traditional working-class values are particularly receptive to newer consumer
pressures, leading to an amplification of class differences in parental transfers of
money and consumer goods to young people. Certainly, in light of the finding that
15 year olds from all social backgrounds are equally consumerist in attitude, the gap
between consumer ‘wants’ and consumer ‘haves’ appears to be greater among
middle-class than working-class youth.
 460 P. West et al.

These class differences highlight a weakness in the evidence derived from the 11
16
dataset. While the data in relation to sources and amount of disposable income and
socioeconomic status generally compare favourably with other studies, no information
was collected about parental attitudes towards money, nor expenditure on children
other than pocket money. Evidence from other studies, although suggesting surpris-
ingly similar levels of expenditure on regular items such as food, clothes, school and
activities, also highlights areas such as birthdays and holidays where young people in
poorer households are disadvantaged (Middleton et al. 1997; Middleton & Ashworth
1998). The discrepancy in the class patterning of immediate and longer term
expenditure is also illustrated by differences in patterns of savings, several studies
(Lewis & Scott 2003; Mintel International Group 2005) finding ownership of saving
accounts to be directly related to class. The 11
16 study cannot add to this evidence; nor
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

can it illuminate on other longer term parental expenditure on children such as school
fees, student support or transfers of wealth, all of which benefit young people from
higher social classes. These accumulate as economic and social capital in later life, and
directly impact on occupational achievement, and related earnings. Their importance,
however, can be seen in the class relationship with books that, as cultural capital
(Bourdieu 1984), anticipates the longer term advantage accruing to higher class youth.
It is also possible that the inverse relationship between social class and young
people’s disposable income is specific to earlier youth, changing after the end of
statutory education to a (more familiar) direct relationship. There is a suggestion this
might be happening in the finding that between the ages of 11 and 15 income sources
flatten out by class, and income amounts flatten out according to family structure
and parental working status. This is also suggested by the few other studies (for
example, Barnet-Verzat & Wolff 2002) with a wider age range, which report an
increase in parental money transfers to young people after school-leaving, although
not unfortunately by reference to socioeconomic status. If this were the case, it would
explain discrepancies in assessments of the class/income relationship in later youth,
which generally assume a direct relationship (for example, Furlong & Cartmel 1997),
and the evidence presented here relating to earlier youth. By the same token, it would
also reveal that plausible though the materialist assumption is, it does not appear to
fit conditions in early youth. Whatever the case, future research on consumption,
lifestyles and life-chances, both in early and later youth, would do well to report
evidence on income rather than rely on questionable assumptions.
Notwithstanding these caveats, the evidence from 11
16 and other studies (Schor
2004; Mayo 2005) testifies to the fact that the social and cultural context that shapes
the experience of most young people in contemporary society is profoundly
consumerist in nature. In terms of identity, peer group acceptance and social
involvement, consumerism is key, and the key to consumerism is money. The
material paradox is that, although they might want to, it is not those young people
from more advantaged families who have the greater purchasing power to buy into
consumer culture, but those who are most disadvantaged. This probably occurs partly
because of differences in (class-based) parental values and partly because young
 Journal of Youth Studies 461

people in poorer families secure more money through a combination of parental

sacrifice, ‘pester power’ and greater earnings. The consumer loop is complete when
their favoured possessions include technology (TV, video/DVD, iPODS, etc.), which
further exposes them to consumer images, the impact of which may be especially
strong in the privacy of their bedrooms (Livingstone & Bovill 1999). That this
happens in spite of the material disadvantage of the family highlights the importance
of class culture, and particularly the way traditional working-class culture interacts
with newer consumer pressures to create new consumer demands. The paradox is
that while young people’s personal income and personal consumer possessions are
class related, this is not structured in accordance with a material base.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

References
Barnet-Verzat, C. & Wolff, F-C. (2002) ‘Motives for pocket money allowance and family incentives’,
Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 339
366.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste , Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Bynner, J. M. (1993) ESRC 16
19 Initiative: A Longitudinal Study of Two Cohorts of Young People,
1987
1989 , ESRC Data Archive SN3109/User Guide, University of Essex, Colchester.
Carstairs, V. & Morris, R. (1991) Deprivation and Health in Scotland , Aberdeen University Press,
Aberdeen.
Doss, V. S., Marlowe, J. & Godwin, D. D. (1995) ‘Middle-school children’s sources and uses of
money’, The Journal of Consumer Affairs , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 219
241.
Ecob, R., Sweeting, H., West, P. & Mitchell, R. (1996) The West of Scotland 11 to 16 Study: Schools,
Sample Design and Implementation Issues , Working Paper No. 53, MRC Medical Sociology
Unit, Glasgow.
Everett, R. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations 4th edn, The Free Press, New York.
Feather, N. T. (1991) ‘Variables relating to the allocation of pocket money to children: parental
reasons and values’, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 30, pp. 221
234.
Ford, R. & Millar, J. (eds) (1998) Private Lives and Public Responses: Lone Parenthood & Future Policy
in the UK , Policy Studies Institute, London.
Furlong, A. & Cartmel, F. (1997) Young People and Social Change: Individualisation and Risk in Late
Modernity, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Furnham, A. (1999a) ‘Economic socialization: a study of adults’ perceptions and uses of allowances
(pocket money) to educate children’, British Journal of Development Psychology, vol. 17,
pp. 585
604.
Furnham, A. (1999b) ‘The saving and spending habits of young people’, Journal of Economic
Psychology, vol. 20, pp. 677
697.
Furnham, A. (2001) ‘Parental attitudes to pocket money/allowances for children’, Journal of
Economic Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 397
422.
Furnham, A. & Argyle, M. (1998) The Psychology of Money, Routledge, London.
Furnham, A. & Thomas, P. (1984a) ‘Pocket money: a study of economic education’, British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 205
212.
Furnham, A. & Thomas, P. (1984b) ‘Adult perceptions of the economic socialization of children’,
Journal of Adolescence , vol. 7, pp. 217
231.
Halifax plc. (2004) Halifax Pocket Money Survey 2004 , Halifax plc, Halifax.
Hills, J. (1996) New Inequalities: The Changing Distribution of Income and Wealth in the UK ,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hoggart, R. (1957) The Uses of Literacy, Chatto & Windus, London.
 462 P. West et al.

Klein, J. (1967) Samples from English Cultures , Routledge, London.

Lewis, A. & Scott, A. J. (2003) ‘A study of economic socialisation; financial practices in the home
and the preferred role of schools among parents with children under 16’, Citizenship, Social
and Economic Education , vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 138
147.
Livingstone, S. & Bovill, M. (1999) Young People: New Media . Report of the Research Project
‘Children, Young People and the Changing Media Environment’, London School of
Economics and Political Science, London.
Lyle, S. (1994) ‘An investigation into the manipulative strategies of 10 and 11 year-olds in their
relationships with their parents as reported by the children in an educational context’,
Educational Studies , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 19
27.
Marshall, H. R. & Magruder, L. (1960) ‘Relations between parent money education practices and
children’s knowledge and use of money’, Child Development , vol. 31, pp. 253
284.
Mayhew, E., Uprichard, E., Beresford, B., Ridge, T. & Bradshaw, J. (2004) Children and Childhood in
the United Kingdom , University of York, York.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:45 02 October 2014

Mayo, E. (2005) Shopping Generation , National Consumer Council, London.

Middleton, S. & Ashworth, K. (1998) ‘Small fortunes: spending on children in lone-parent families’,
in Private Lives and Public Responses: Lone Parenthood & Future Policy in the UK , eds R. Ford
& J. Millar, Policy Studies Institute, pp, London, pp. 188
140.
Middleton, S., Ashworth, K. & Walker, R. (1994) Family Fortunes: Pressures on Parents and Children
in the 1990s , CPAG, London.
Middleton, S., Ashworth, K. & Braithwaite, I. (1997) Small Fortunes: Spending on Children,
Childhood Poverty and Parental Sacrifice , Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Mintel International Group (2005) Marketing to Children aged 11
14: Special Report , Mintel
International Group Ltd, London.
Mortimore, J., Dennehy, K., Lee, C. & Finch, M. (1994) ‘Economic socialisation in the American
family: the prevalence, distribution and consequences of allowance arrangements’, Family
Relations , vol. 43, pp. 23
29.
Newson, J. & Newson, E. (1976) Seven Years Old in the Home Environment , Allen & Unwin,
London.
Office of Population Census and Surveys (1990) Standard Occupational Classification Volume 2 ,
HMSO, London.
Schor, J. B. (2004) Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture , Scribner,
New York.
Shropshire, J. & Middleton, S. (1999) Small Expectations: Learning to be Poor? , Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, York.
Sullivan, A. (2001) ‘Cultural capital and educational attainment’, Sociology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 893

911.
Sweeting, H., Der, G. & West, P. (2001) Bias, Attrition and Weighting in respect of the West of
Scotland 11 to 16 Study’s Baseline, S2 and S4 Surveys , Working Paper No. 9, MRC Social &
Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow.
UK Market Intelligence (2004) Pocket Money: Non-food and Drink
UK , Mintel Group, London.
Walls (2004) Walls Monitor: The Authoritative Survey on British Children’s Pocket Money, Birds Eye
Wall’s, Walton on Thames.
West, P. & Sweeting, H. (1996) Background, Rationale and Design of the West of Scotland 11 to 16
Study, Working Paper No. 52, MRC Medical Sociology Unit, Glasgow.
West, P., Sweeting, H. & Speed, E. (2001) ‘We really do know what you do: a comparison of reports
from 11 year olds and their parents in respect of parental economic activity and occupation’,
Sociology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 539
559.
West, P., Sweeting, H., Der, G., Barton, J. & Lucas, C. (2003) ‘Voice-DISC identified DSM-IV
disorders among 15 year-olds in the West of Scotland’, Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, vol. 42, no. 80, pp. 941
949.