ADULTHOOD1989), also exhibit historical and cross-societal
variability. In contemporary modern societies, struc-
tural differences in the link between school and
work (Shavit and Muller 1998) are reflected in the
phenomenal experience of the transition into the
labor force. Variation in the institutional connec-
tion between school and work in the United States
and Germany influences the ages at which young
people begin to actively prepare for the highly
consequential decisions (especially regarding
postsecondary schooling and career) that lie ahead
of them, and the degree of stress and uncertainty
they encounter in doing so (Mortimer and Kruger
forthcoming).
It is widely believed that age norms, specifying
the timing and order of key life events, influence
the subjective passage, as well as the objective
trajectory, through the life course (Neugarten et
al. 1965; Neugarten and Datan 1973). ‘‘On-time’’
transitions are ‘‘culturally prepared’’ by socializa-
tion and institutional arrangements (Model 1989,
p. 13), and are thereby rendered psychologically
salutary. Those who are ‘‘off-time,’’ too early or
too late, are thought to be the target of negative
social sanctions and to experience psychological
strain (Rossi 1980). National polls on the ideal age
to marry and become a parent yield age distribu-
tions that cluster around the modal ages at which
these changes generally occur. But consistency in
expectations, ‘‘ideal ages,’’ or even in the actual
timing of transitions, may have more to do with
institutionally determined pathways and other struc-
tural constraints than personal norms.
The notion that norms control timing behav-
ior is contradicted by evidence that age preferenc-
es (‘‘ideal’’ ages for marker events) lag behind
behavioral change (Modell 1980; McLaughlin et
al. 1988, ch. 9). Marini (1984) notes that there is
little direct evidence regarding the existence or
content of social norms governing the timing of
life events. She asserts that if norms (and associat-
ed sanctions) do exist, they probably vary by popu-
lation subgroup (e.g., by socioeconomic status,
gender, and ethnicity), and encompass such a wide
range of acceptable ages that they lack causal
import. In one study, college students’ expecta-
tions about the ages at which they would most
likely traverse various markers of transition were
found to be more variable than those of high
school students (Greene 1990).
Older ages of marriage and finishing school,
coupled with the increasing reversibility of status
changes (serial marriages and cohabiting unions,
adult education, etc.) could erode age norms, to
the extent that they do exist, since such passages
are ‘‘no longer viewed in a linear way as transitions
passed at a given point and left behind permanent-
ly’’ (Arnett 1997, p. 20). Historically, as objective
markers of adulthood have become increasingly
variable in their timing and sequencing, age norms
may have lost whatever force they once had. But in
fact, we do not know whether the failure to make
particular transitions at an age when one’s con-
temporaries have mostly done so engenders a
subjective sense of being ‘‘too early’’ or ‘‘too late’’
and creates stress, either for earlier cohorts or for
contemporary young people.Arnett (1997) found that youth themselves
were more likely to choose psychological traits
indicative of individualism and responsibility as
necessary for a person to be considered an adult;
as criteria for adult status, youth reject role transi-
tions or ‘‘objective markers’’ of adulthood, such as
finishing school, marriage, or parenthood. Ritu-
als, such as marriage and graduation, have tradi-
tionally allowed public recognition of successful
passage to adulthood. If such objective markers of
transition have less psychological salience than in
the past, they may be less important in signifying
and reinforcing adult status.However, in Arnett’s study, two such transi-
tions were endorsed by the majority: living outside
the parental household and becoming financially
independent of parents. These linked changes,
signifying autonomy from parents, may have im-
portant symbolic meaning for young people as
they contemplate becoming adults. So too, three-
fourths of the participants endorsed ‘‘decide on
personal beliefs and values independently of par-
ents or other influences’’ (p. 11) as criteria of
adulthood.Consistent with Arnett’s research, there is ap-
parently no clear correspondence between par-
ticular objective markers (e.g. graduating from
college, beginning a full-time job) and young peo-
ple’s subjective identification of themselves as
‘‘adults.’’ Aronson (1999b) found that some con-
temporary young women in their mid-twenties do
not ‘‘feel like’’ adults, even when occupying roles