Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1998 Review Essays Reflections on a 30-Year Career of Research on Work and Personality by Melvin Kohn and Colleagues Kenneth I. Spenner! When Class and Conformity (Kohn, 1969) appeared in my life it was in my second undergraduate sociology course, Soc. 123, Social Stratifica- tion. It was a red and white paperback with little pseudo-people hierarchi- cally arranged on the cover. The Cold War and the Vietnam War were in full swing. What was happening in the streets pushed me into sociology classes; the little red and white book helped keep me there. The thesis could be remembered for the final exam (memorable came later), never mind that canonical correlation had to wait several years for Statistics classes to be grasped fully. How and why did parents’ social class matter in the lives of sons and daughters? Why did middle class parents value self-direction for their children while working class parents valued Obedience, cleanliness, and neatness. It was because these class-related pat- terns were linked to the conditions of people’s work lives—levels of routi- nization, closeness of supervision, and substantive complexity of their work. ‘Two phenomena that one always sensed were linked in everyday life, social class and values, had a deeper causal explanation in work conditions. Ear- lier research had established clearly the empirical correlation between so- cial class and values, but a puzzle remained as to the underlying mechanisms. The puzzle was solved when Kohn and colleagues dug deeper into the structured conditions of everyday life than the abstract labels of middle and working class that had dominated previous studies. I passed the exam. The red and white book had more than a decade of research to draw on before its birth. It was to become the first of a trilogy of books by Kohn ‘Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708. 169170 Spenner and colleagues over several decades, successively capturing one of Ameri- can sociology’s most cumulative and productive research programs. At the review editor’s invitation, my purpose is to reflect on the over three decades of research in the Kohn tradition.2 What do we see when looking across three decades? How is it different to view the corpus as a whole rather than simply review one of the publications? What lessons were we able to learn? What major unanswered questions remain? To reframe the questions, let us yield for a moment to the metaphors and recent debates in organizational ecology. The research tradition is like a species in evolution, with species members being the research contribu- tions. Unlike the human species, the birth or founding of this kind of spe- cies is a fuzzy event. How did the species reproduce and evolve? In what ways did the sociological environment, indeed the broader social environ- ment, shape the evolution of the species? How has the program exhibited structural inertia in carrying forward its founding presuppositions, concepts, and methodology into its present form? In what ways has the inertia been helpful, or not, for the scientific cumulation of knowledge and discovery? How adaptive has the research program been with respect to emergent ideas, theoretical developments, and methodological innovations in the re- search environment? Finally, given its genealogy, what is the state of the species or research program today? Alive and well or nearing the end of its life span? Ultimately, the answers to the questions are those of a com- munity of scholars, and my voice is but one of the larger chorus. ‘We headed off to graduate school in the early seventies. The species members that would undergird the second of the trilogy began to appear (Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification, Kohn and Schooler with Miller, Miller, Schoenbach, and Schoenberg, 1983). Note the large team of scholars. This was important in the evolution of the program, for this team or parts of it held together for 10-15 or more years of sustained and cumulative contributions. For those who have worked on collaborative teams, this is a tribute to organizational skills, pa- tience, and good fortune among other virtues. A 1973 paper (Kohn and Schooler, 1973) was one of the first to apply nonrecursive structural equa- tion models, a quick adoption of a then recent innovation. More important, it was the first paper to specify explicitly and model the reciprocal rela- tionship between work conditions and personality. The reciprocal relation- ship was implicit in the original volume in the trilogy, but the methodology 2] gratefully acknowledge the invitation of past review editor Gary Marx, and the assistance of current review editor, Suzanne Keller. They bear no responsibility for my judgments. 1 make no attempt to review the full research program of Kohn and colleagues. For reviews and evaluations of the program see Spenner (1988), Kohn and Slomezynski (1990:232-262), Miller-Loessi (1994), and Mortimer and Lorence (1994).Reflections on a 30-Year Career im to estimate such relationships had not yet diffused into the sociological community. Thus, this paper represented a relatively quick adoption of a methodological innovation from the larger field into the study of personality and social structure. The substantive contribution of the paper informed a long-standing classic debate about worker as malleable pawn vs. worker as exercising human agency, actively controlling and manipulating the work environment. These two images of worker—passive and malleable vs. active and engaging—prevailed in distinct literatures and perspectives. Here we can see them brought together in one study although the purists of either side would dispute the purity of the integration. The state of the classic debate had a new level of resolution: Whereas much of the prior research saw workers as either malleable in the face of the structured conditions of the workplace or as actively exercising agency in constructing their social world, in the study by Kohn and Schooler, both types of effects existed. Cross-sectional data on a national sample of employed males showed both socialization effects (conditions of work shaping aspects of the self) and selection effects (workers self-selecting into jobs with given conditions, or workers with given self-orientations actively shaping their work roles and work lives). On balance, the socialization effects were stronger, and mal- leability ruled over agency at least in this specification. In the early and middle 1970s, other species members appeared: the lesson and portrait of bureaucratic man, occupational structure and aliena- tion, social class and parental values, and a first analysis that considered class categories, social stratification position, and psychological functioning. The species was alive and well but most of the species members were stud- ies based on men. The latter piece (Kohn and Schoenbach, 1983) foreshad- owed an important set of comparisons, extensions, and international replications in the late 1980s and into the 1990s. In summary, these con- tributions used the same cross-sectional data and design to extend core findings from the first round of the trilogy to classic sociological problems and to begin to build a cumulative web of research findings. Within the sociological discipline, status attainment was in its boom years, and computer technology in social research went from the exotic and rare to the regular and mainstream, as reflected in large-scale social surveys and based on them, rapid multivariate analyses of their data. Dur- ing this time, Occupational Changes in a Generation, I and II, Karl Joreskog, LISREL, structural equation models, and regression analyses of the class structure all became part of our repertoire. In perhaps its ado- lescence-to-early-adulthood, the research program was quick to adapt to methodological developments in the research environment. The research Program also was quick to incorporate one major conceptual/theoretical advance from the late 1970s in considering the class categories of Wright172 Spenner in its models of work and personality, in addition to standard indicators of social stratification position. These analyses showed that there were sys- tematic differences in the dimensions of the social self by class position, but (a) most of the effects of class on self were mediated by the conditions of work life, (b) social stratification position continued to exert inde- pendent effects on self dimensions, and (c) the basic conclusions about the balance of selection and socialization effects remained intact after ad- justing for one’s social class position. Somewhere in here “we” completed the Ph.D. in sociology; what was once but a book to be mastered for the final exam in a course had become a full-fledged research program, the substance of a full question on a comprehensive Ph.D examination. The research program was starting to affect my own nascent research, and more importantly, the way I viewed the social world as scholar. The next major advance in the evolution of the program was an ex- tension of the research design. Recall that the original design involved a national sample of over 3000 persons, representative of the male, full-time employed civilian labor force, age 16 and over in 1964. At the time the original data were gathered, most of the tumult of the 1960s was still to come, most notably the women’s movement. The men of 1964 continued to show up in species replications. Missing were the part-time employed, the unemployed, women, marginal groups in society, and other cohorts both younger and older. Even today, this question of replication of the program’s results on other cohorts and social groups in the United States is at best, addressed only sketchily, at worst, not at all. In this fundamental respect, the founding conditions of a sampling design that was determined over 30 years ago define a key element of inertia in the research program, save but for a few later replications on other datasets in the 1970s and 1980s. Paradoxically, the cross-national replication support for the key findings from the research program is much more extensive, including large-scale replicated social surveys in Poland, Japan, and the Ukraine. The introduction of a longitudinal design involved the follow-up of a subset of the 1964 respondents in 1974. The follow-up reinterviewed about 700 of the original men (78% of the men selected for reinterview). The longitudinal data represent about 60% of the original sampled population of men. A conservative estimate says this represents 40-50% of the working population of males in 1964; the sample of women is even more restrictive as it refers to wives of men in the sample. Thus, the few studies in the tradition that directly investigated the core relationships for women (J. Miller et al., 1979) refer to perhaps one-third, maybe as few as one-quarter or one-fifth of American women. Later cross-national comparisons found much more similarity than difference in the core relationships for women compared with men. The issue is not one of blame; all of us live withinReflections on » 30-Year Career 173 the constraints of our designs, previously collected data, and so on. None- theless, there is an unresolved question about the consequences for what we know and what we do not know in an area of research. What if the tradition and the design had begun with a sample of women, and the men were husbands of women in the sample? Would our knowledge base look the same as it does today? The longitudinal data (a) led to a round of extensions and elaborations, (b) stimulated additional research by others with additional data and meth- odology in different research settings, and (c) formed the basis for the sec- ond volume of the trilogy in 1983. The extensions and elaborations showed the model basically worked for wives of men in the sample, extended the basic thesis to the complexity of other role arenas (¢.g., education, leisure activities, housework) showing similar implications for the social self, and most important, added a longitudinal dimension to the comparisons. To wit: the basic finding of the original model applied to a decade long com- parison in people’s lives. Components of self varied widely in their stability in adult lives; relatively more of the effects of job on self were contempo- Taneous—quick acting if you will; relatively more of the effects of the self on work were lagged at decades length, suggesting that slower processes are in motion, those of selective job shifting to bring the work world in concert with the contours of self, or the Sisyphus-like struggle to change the immediate structure of one’s job and work environment. There were other contributions and interpretations of the volume, but in my own mind two big-sweep issues frame the second volume of the trilogy: its major con- tribution to sociology, on the one hand, and the changing external envi- Tonment vis-a-vis the program, on the other hand. The major contribution of the program was the fundamental and last- ing redirection of the field of social structure and personality. At risk of Overextending the metaphorical goodwill of the reader, the first of the tril- Ogy defined the ingredients, the second of the trilogy baked it, and the third of the trilogy was frosting on the cake. House (1981) concisely cap- tured this basic reorientation. Prior to the middle to late 1960s, the domi- Nant research streams were those of studies of culture and “modal Personality.” Even with a shifted emphasis to social class in the 1950s and 1960s, class meant “working” or “middle” class, and personality meant some underlying continuum of more or less well-adjusted individuals. Most re- Search stopped with the demonstration of some correlation between posi- tion in social structure and a identified behavior, attitude, or orientation. Kohn and colleagues’ pursuit of the question of why and how social class Mattered for values was at the center of the reorientation. House (1981) characterized this shift in terms of three principles (components, proximity, and psychological) that are now the modus operandi in the study of social14 Spenner structure and personality. The components principle views social structures as multidimensional, and explanations need to specify which dimensions are important for what parts of the social self and people’s lives. The prox- imity principle was Lewinian: focus first on the more proximate aspects of people’s lives, and successively expand to broader levels of time and space. The psychological principle asks the scholar to specify the psychological processes when variations in social structure shape people’s attitudes and behavior and vice versa. This was the major contribution of the program. It shifted the paradigm of a subfield (without prejudging future contribu- tions) in ways that were lasting and significant. The program had become the Program, with replication support, ex- tensions, and the first comparative studies in Poland, Japan, and elsewhere. The core findings of the program had become part of the sociological lexi- con. By the mid-1980s, perhaps 70-80 studies were in print serving as the inner orbits of the program’s agenda; hundreds of others had been influ- enced by or cited the program’s approach or central findings. At the same time the sociological environment was undergoing signifi- cant change during the late 1970s and into the 1980s. Status attainment underwent a under significant critique. In Europe, class and mobility studies were revived. The new structuralism was born and proliferated, from bring- ing the firm back in and onward (Baron and Bielby, 1980), to substantial growth in institutional economics, making notable inroads into U.S. soci- ology. Comparative studies—in their methodology, their reach, and their theoretical savvy—expanded in our own field and in brother and sister dis- ciplines. The study of rational choice gained new impetus. The concept of network took on new meaning. Consider some of the key concepts: the social organization of work, manufacturing consent, negotiated orders, sym- bolic environments, embeddedness, bounded rationality, density depend- ence, and organizational inertia, isomorphism, free-riders, collective and individual rationality, to name but a few. One way to characterize these combined changes in the elaboration of mezzoscopic-level structures, proc- esses and actors.? How did the research program adapt to these changes in the sociological environment? Changes in the social environment also had significant implications for the research program as the Reagan administration pressed for major cuts in social science research support; these cuts, widely diffused, remain to this day. Indeed, has the National Science Foundation Sociology budget not been under attack since 1980? The home of the research program, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Laboratory of Social and Environ- SMezzoscopic refers to intermediate levels of time and social space, in the study of work and personality, corresponding to careers, firms, industries, and so on.Reflections on a 30-Year Career 175 mental Studies, suffered and then died during this time. The original team, member by member, departed; K. Miller to Arizona State, J. Miller to the City University New York system, and Kohn to Johns Hopkins. Where was the program headed, and how did these changes alter its course? In July 1987, a delegation of the American Sociological Association (ASA) traveled to the former Soviet Union in conjunction with Soviet So- ciology Association. The delegation included Melvin Kohn, as then Presi- dent of the ASA, William Bielby, Michael Burawoy, Joanne Miller, John Robinson, Michael Swafford, and myself. Change was in the air. Gorbachev was in office, glasnost was a year to eighteen months old, and perestroika was beginning to appear. By this time, research in the program had ex- Panded to include (a) cross-national comparisons in Poland and Japan; (b) comparisons of life course (cohort/age) variations in core findings; (c) in- Corporation of Wright's class categories into the model with data from the U.S. and Poland; and (d) consolidation and reflection on what was more than 20 years of a research tradition and what has come to be a healthy— often lively—debate over limits and interpretation of the core findings. Melvin Kohn’s presentation that day, July 4th, 1987, in Vilnius, Lithu- ania, centered on the importance of social class conceptualized in discrete, marxist categories vs. more continuous conceptualizations of stratification systems (¢.g., education, occupation, and income) and how these (a) oper- ated in capitalist compared with state socialist societies, and (b) the relative importance of class vs. stratification in the relationship between work and Personality (Yadov, 1988). Thinking back, this presentation and the lively debate that followed foreshadowed both the content and key findings of the third volume of the trilogy, Social Structure and Personality: A Com- Parative Analysis of the United States and Poland (Kohn and Slomczynski, 1990). The third volume impressed me more as extension of the program than as significant reorientation or capstone. The extensions were twofold: (a) Teplication of the basic model and core findings on a probability sample from Poland taken in 1978 (hence cross-sectional but with only some analy- Ses for women—design inertia continues intact), and (b) continued expan- sion of the conceptual model and extension of the analyses to include discrete class categories in addition to continuous indicators of social strati- fication position in relation to dimensions of the self. The major findings showed much more similarity than difference in the Polish-U.S. compari- Sons. The only major exception involved the determinants of the sense of distress. In the U.S., occupational self-direction ameliorated distress for men; in Poland it failed to do so and perhaps even advanced distress in this then socialist system where party and occupational position could mean Very different things compared to an advanced capitalist setting. As for the176 Spenner class analysis, I was impressed by how the end conclusions mirrored the agency-malleability contrast of a decade or more earlier: both class, meas- ured with discrete categories, and stratification position, measured with continuous indicators matter for self-direction; but the latter is on balance more important. Both class and stratification matter for the social self but because they channel people into jobs with specific levels of routinization, closeness of supervision, and substantive complexity of work. Again, the purists may not be satisfied—for example, because of approximations in the measurement of class categories, or because of the cross-sectional na- ture of the Polish data—but I see such attempts at empirical dialogue as exciting and exactly what our research should be doing. The third volume also was helpful for its overview and careful reflec- tion on the research program as a whole. The first several chapters nicely review the tradition, its core findings and contributions, providing a helpful review for those who are generally familiar with the earlier contributions, and insightful preview for more recent scholars. The last chapter is that rare attempt by authors to wrestle earnestly with a line of research: What has been learned? What are the limits of knowledge? What are the alter- native explanations? And where do we turn next? Finally, the third volume of the trilogy foreshadows continuation of the species into the next century. Kohn, Slomczynski and a host of East European colleagues (Kohn ef al., 1996) are well along in new rounds of investigating social structure and personality under conditions of rapid social change. These extensions center on new cross-sectional waves of data from Poland and the Ukraine in the early 1990s, several years into their respective journeys in the postcommu- nist era. Crucially, women are now a major sampled component of the new waves. There are other design modifications, but these impress me more as improvements or variations on a theme rather than as a radical departure from the core U.S. design and set of measures. Returning to the larger sweep across the trilogy, what are its main strengths and weaknesses? The main contribution, spanning the three vol- umes, has been the fundamental reorientation of research on work and personality. It was in fully crystallized form in the second volume, but in looking across the three volumes, significant elements were in place in the first volume, and further consolidation occurred in the third. This reorien- tation was significant, lasting, and led to the generation of new knowledge. Further, it has affected the way a community of scholars has approached issues of social structure and personality, all of which is much easier to see in looking across the three volumes compared with looking at any one. For example, it is no longer acceptable to cast the work-self relationship as either one of the socialization effects of work on personality, or as the effects of personality in selecting workers into certain types of jobs. Both causalReflections on a 30-Year Career 17 Processes operate over the course of people’s careers. Further, dimensions of personality are far from constant over the course of people’s work lives. Rather, dimensions such as intellectual flexibility and self-directedness of orientation are subject to the molding influences of the conditions of work with the passage of time. This latter finding has far-reaching implications. That part of the career guidance enterprise that measures personality and values in adolescence and then uses personality profiles to match people to jobs—assuming a high stability of personality traits through adulthood— is called into question. Or consider recent arguments in The Bell Curve (Hermstein and Murray, 1994) that imply intellectual functioning is highly stable over the human lifespan, particularly after early childhood. Yet, the Tesearch program clearly shows that intellectual functioning is responsive to social conditions, particularly the opportunities for self-direction in work (Kohn, 1996). The main strength and the main weakness of the program issue from the same source: the fixedness or inertia in the research design. Among Tesearch streams, few have shown more continuity, consistency of measure- ment and comparison, and cumulativeness. The body of replication and extension support requires careful, not loose, design and measurement comparability. Our field has had too few instances of such design continuity. The flip side of design continuity is inertia, however, and as conse- quence less robustness in the knowledge base as one moves away from the core design. Our knowledge about these relationships for other cohorts and Social groups, most notably women, is less robust and has been slower at making its way into the larger research tradition. As corollary, the adaptive- ness of the core program to changes in the sociological environment has been selective—some would argue necessarily and wisely so. I see three main ways in which the program has incorporated innovations in the sociological environment. Overall, the program has been most adaptive in incorporating advances in methodology, measurement, and statistical modeling. Second, the main conceptual adjustment occurred in building social class categories into a succession of comparisons in the last 10-15 years. Beyond this, the Conceptual/theoretical advancements have been modest to minor, more the addition of a variable or two than expansion of level of analysis. Finally, the Tesearch program has incorporated new research sites and expanded its con- sideration of role relationships. Witness the Polish and Japanese replications, and the new Polish and Ukrainian rounds of data collection. In considering Tole relationships beyond occupations in the paid labor force, the research Program has expanded to consider the self-directedness of educational set- tings, leisure-time activities, and housework. But the larger sweep of the three volumes also shows a consistency of theoretical explanation at a specific niche of level of analysis in time and178 Spenner space. Consider a time scale that ranges from hours to decades and a social space scale that ranges from a single person to small groups, organizations, and whole societies. Relative to the level of analysis in the research design, a more macroscopic analysis would consider longer time intervals and larger ‘space units (decades, institutions). A more microscopic analysis would con- sider shorter time intervals (e.g., people over days or weeks, work groups over a year) and smaller space units (repeated within-person measurements of dimensions of work stimuli and personality). Recall, the research design measures one or more snapshots of job conditions, structural locations, and the mix of self conditions (e.g., intellectual flexibility, self-directedness of orientation, distress, and so on) in a single survey cross-section, or in dec- ade-length panels.‘ The research program is largely silent on the dynamics of work and personality at both more microscopic and more macroscopic levels of analysis, although the most recent cross-national comparisons be- gin to speak to the more macroscopic issues. Over the evolution of the research program, notice that new data in- spired new volumes in the trilogy more than theoretical reorientation, ex- pansion, or addition of new level of explanation. It is not so much that the extant explanation is wanting or inadequate, at the current level of formu- lation and design. Rather, I wonder if the next big advances might depend More on expanding up to the next macroscopic levels of analysis (e.g., the fabric of firms, industries, and institutional structure), and telescoping down to more microscopic levels of time and space say in the days, weeks, and months of people's fives (vs. years) and specific durations of exposure to environmental stimuli in microsettings, or something closer to a motion pic- ture of self dimensions and their interactions over a shorter period of time. For example, we know relatively little about the actual process by which the conditions of work result in changes in values and cognitive functioning. How does this happen in real time? Is the process of learning generalization that is postulated by Kohn and colleagues as straightforward as the textbook explanations in reinforcement and cognitive psychology? Elsewhere I have provided more details of this line of argument (Spenner, 1988). Kohn and Slomczynski (1990:232-262) have responded fairly, largely in agreement but wondering exactly how this is to be done. I do not have a full answer, but several directions deserve exploration. Note that these are advances of research design, which if pursued, might expand explanation and theorizing, rather than new, bold a priori theory. They center on (a) multilevel conceptualization and data collection to move in a more macroscopic direction; and (b) shorter intervals than the 10 year intervals of the present design but more repeated measurements of both ‘Schooler (1984) offers a crafty exception.Reflections on a 30-Year Career 179 role and environmental stimuli, which would move the levels of analysis and explanation of personality and the social self in a more microscopic direction. Consider two examples. First, in the ongoing new Polish and Ukrainian sets of comparisons, I worry that applying the standard design will leave us not knowing why we will find similarities or differences in the base relationships. The designs are largely silent on what has changed and what has not at the institutional levels in the societies being studied, and at a more fine-grained level, among the social settings within the two societies. For occupational self-direction, @ critical dimension concerns the firm or industry setting within which the tespondent’s job is located. Is the job in a setting that is subject to priva- tization and new private sector competition, or is it in a setting that is highly inertial with respect to the functioning of giant state-owned enterprises of the past era? And for transition economies, what role is played by the re- source flows in the household and in a person’s kin and work networks in altering work-personality relationships? Consider the institutional sphere around a respondent's work life and self-appraisals, judgments, and func- tioning: how much of that order is old; how much is new, and how much is some hybrid combination? How do nascent or resurrected identities (eth- nicity, self-employment), including their levels of salience and enactment in everyday life—beyond a one-time self-identification of “I belong to this category or that category” — engage or disengage base relationships between self-direction in the environment and role arenas, and the self? To some degree, expansion in these directions would require additional, more fre- quent measurement of current and added concepts. In other cases, firm, industry, or regional level aggregate data might tapped, permitting eventual Multilevel comparisons. Again, these are tall orders and are a collective (not individual) responsibility. At more microscopic levels, the existence and logic of the learning gen- eralization explanation advocated by Kohn and colleagues might provide fertile focus. The learning generalization explanation for findings of the model says workers quite directly learn from stimulus conditions of their jobs, without much additional affective or cognitive processing, or identity bundling, and then quite directly generalize these lessons to both elements of the self and in other role arenas. But learning generalization in the larger Tesearch program is generally inferred, and competing processes are only indirectly tested and measured. There is little in the design that either fleshes out this process or tells us whether some other process may be op- erating. As a part-time follower of literatures in social psychology and the life span, it is difficult to believe that major developments here in, for ex- ample, identity theory and research, in attribution theory and information Processing, in cognitive schemata research, or in developmental contours180 Spenner of optimally exercised vs. unexercised mental abilities would not enrich our understanding of what “learning generalization” means, and if, when, and how it happens (Spenner, 1988). But the designs and data that inform this type of theoretical elaboration are likely to be different from the big sweep cross-sectional or panel survey. They are more likely to come from the labo- ratory, from diaries and life histories, or even from time series assessments of environment and self. Again, this responsibility rests with a community of scholars of social structure and personality, and not only the original Tesearch program. Looking across the trilogy over its three decade span was fun, and hopefully insightful. Pirsig (1974) once described science as akin to a bull- dozer in its slowness of movement, accumulation of knowledge, and change of direction. Looking across a set of contributions over a longer time period brings both progress and inertia into sharper focus. - My college-aged son recently took his first sociology class. As he ap- proached his final examination, among his questions was whether I knew a sociologist by the name of Melvin Kohn. REFERENCES Baron, James N. and William T. Bielby 1980 "Bringing the firm back in: Stratifica- tion, segmentation, and the organiza- tion of work.” American Sociological Review 45; 737-765. Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray 1994 The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New ‘York: Free Press, House, James S. 1981 “Social structure and personality.” In Morris Rosenberg and Ralph & Turner (eda), Social Psychology: So- Perspectives: 525-561. New York: Basic Books. Koha, Melvin L. 1969 " Class and Conformity: A Study in Val- ues. Homewood, IL: Dorsey (2nd ed., 197, University of Chicago Press). “The ‘Bell Curve’ from the of research on social structure and personality.” Sociological Forum 11: 395-411. Kohn, Melvin L. and Carrie Schoenbach 1983 “Class, stratification and psychological functioning.” In Melvin L. Kohn and Carmi Schooler (eds.), Work and Per- sonality: An Inquiry into the Impact of 1996 Social Stratification: 154-189. Nor- wood, NJ: Ablex. Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler 1973 “Occupational experience and psycho- logical functioning: An assessment of al effects.” American Socio- logical Review 38: 97-118. (with the collaboration of Joanne Miller , Karen A. Miller, Carrie Schoenbach, and Ronald Schoenberg) Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kohn, Melvin L. and Kazimierz M. Slom- czynski 1990 Social Structure and Self-Direction: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Poland. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Kohn, Melvin L., Kazimierz M. Slomezynski, Krystyna cine Janieka Valeri Khmelko, W. Mach, Viadimir Paniotto, Wojciech ‘Zaborowski, and Roberto Gutierrez 1996 “Social structure and personality un- der conditions of radical social change: A comparative analysis of Poland and Ukraine.” Unpublished manuscript. Department of Sociology, the Johns 1983Reflections on a 30-Year Career Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, Miller, Joanne, Carmi Schooler, Melvin L. Kohn, and Karen A. Miller 1979" Women and work: The psychological ef- fects of occupational conditions.” ican Journal of Sociology 85:66-94. Miller-Loessi, Karen 1994 “Comparative social psychology: Cross- cultural and cross-national.” In Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House (eds.), Sociological Perspectives ‘on Social Psychology: 396-420. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Jon Lorence 1994 “Social psychology of work.” In Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine, and James 181 S. House (eds.), Sociological Perspec- tives on Social Psychology: 497-523. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Pirsig, Robert M. 1974 Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Main- tenance. New York: Bantam, Spenner, Kenneth I. 1988 “Social stratification, work and per- sonality.” In W. Richard Scott and Ju- dith Blake (eds.), Annual Review of Sociology 14: 69-97. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Yadov, Viadimir 1988 The Social Organization of Work [in Russian). Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences.Copyright © 2003 EBSCO Publishing