Handbook of Social Status Correlates

By Lee Ellis, Anthony W. Hoskin and Malini Ratnasingam

The Handbook of Social Status Correlates summarizes findings from nearly 4000 studies on traits associated with variations in socioeconomic status. Much of the information is presented in roughly 300 tables, each one providing a visual snapshot of what research has indicated regarding how a specific human trait appears to be correlated with socioeconomic status. The social status measures utilized and the countries in which each study was conducted are also identified.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED INCLUDE THE FOLOWING:

• Are personality traits such as extraversion, competitiveness, and risk-taking associated with social status?
• How universal are sex differences in income and other forms of social status?
• What is the association between health and social status?
• How much does the answer vary according to specific diseases?
• How well established are the relationships between intelligence and social status?
• Is religiosity associated with social status, or does the answer depend on which religion is being considered?
• Are physiological factors correlated with social status, even factors involving the brain?
• Finally, are there as yet any "universal correlates of social status"?

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Jan 26, 2018
• ISBN: 9780128092941

Lee Ellis

Lee Ellis earned his PhD from Florida State University in 1982. For most of his teaching career, he was professor of sociology at Minot State University in North Dakota. After retiring from MSU in 2008, Dr. Ellis accepted a two-year visiting professorship at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where he conducted research. Now semi-retired, he continues conducting research and authoring articles and books including Handbook of Crime Correlates and Handbook of Social Status Correlates.

Book preview

Handbook of Social Status Correlates

Lee Ellis

Consulting Research Author, California, USA

Anthony W. Hoskin

Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, US

Malini Ratnasingam

Heriot-Watt University Malaysia Campus, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Preface

Chapter 1. Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Status

1.1. Forms of Social Stratification

1.2. Basic Terminology: Social Status Versus Social Class

1.3. The Tripartite Social Status Measures

1.4. Nontripartite Socioeconomic Status Measures

1.5. Overall Assessment of Social Status Measurement

1.6. Intercorrelations Between Indicators of Social Status

1.7. Relationships Between One’s Own Social Status and That of One’s Parents

1.8. Conclusions

Chapter 2. Demographic Factors

2.1. Sex Differences

2.2. Sex Ratios

2.3. Age-Related Variations

2.4. Race/Ethnicity

2.5. Religious Affiliation

2.6. Other Demographic Factors

2.7. Highlights

Chapter 3. Familial Factors

3.1. Family Formation, Structure, and Dissolution

3.2. Trait Comparisons Among Couples

3.3. Fertility

3.4. Other Reproductive Aspects of the Family

3.5. Intrafamily Structures, Relationships, and Parenting Practices

3.6. Intrafamily Discord

3.7. Highlights

Chapter 4. Personality and Behavioral Factors

4.1. Highest Order Personality Dimensions

4.2. Lower-Order Personality Characteristics

4.3. Health-Related Behavior

4.4. Sexuality

4.5. Nonsexual Behaviors of a Reproductive Nature

4.6. Alcohol Consumption

4.7. Tobacco Consumption

4.8. Criminality and Delinquency

4.9. Economic Behavior

4.10. Prosocial Behavior

4.11. Recreational Behavior

4.12. Working Outside the Home

4.13. Miscellaneous Behavior Traits

4.14. Highlights

Chapter 5. Attitudes, Preferences, and Beliefs

5.1. Broad-Ranging Attitudes

5.2. Self-Reflective Attitudes

5.3. Education-Related Attitudes

5.4. Political Attitudes and Activities

5.5. Religiosity

5.6. Religious Beliefs

5.7. Miscellaneous Attitudes

5.8. Highlights

Chapter 6. Intellectual and Academic Factors

6.1. Intelligence/Cognitive Ability

6.2. Crystallized Versus Fluid Intelligence and Cognitive Decline With Age

6.3. Intellectual Skills

6.4. Academic Performance

6.5. Educational Levels, Degrees Received, Areas of Academic Training, and Prestige of Colleges Attended

6.6. Field of Academic Specialization

6.7. Peripheral Academic Activities

6.8. Highlights

Chapter 7. Mental Health/Illness and Symptomology

7.1. Mental Health/Illness in General

7.2. Addictive Disorders

7.3. Antisocial Behavior Disorders

7.4. Mood and Delusional Illnesses/Disorders

7.5. Disorders Involving Attention and Socio-Language Deficits

7.6. Eating Disorders

7.7. Fear- and Anxiety-Related Disorders

7.8. Repetitive Behavior Disorders

7.9. Suicidal Behavior

7.10. Healthy Sleeping Habits

7.11. Highlights

Chapter 8. Physical Health Factors

8.1. Longevity/Mortality (Disregarding Etiology)

8.2. General Health Indicators

8.3. Accessing Medical Services

8.4. Specific Ill-Health Conditions (Except Cancers and Cardiovascular Diseases)

8.5. Cancers

8.6. Cardiovascular Disease

8.7. Miscellaneous Health-Relevant Variables

8.8. Highlights

Chapter 9. Biological Factors

9.1. Genetic Factors

9.2. Anatomical and Developmental Factors

9.3. Neurological Factors

9.4. Hormones

9.5. Other Physiological Traits and Processes

9.6. Highlights

Chapter 10. Epilogue: Identifying Universal Social Status Correlates

10.1. Methods for Assessing Likely Universal Correlates of Social Status

10.2. Demographic Variables

10.3. Familial Variables

10.4. Personality and Behavioral Variables

10.5. Attitudinal and Belief Variables

10.6. Intellectual and Academic Variables

10.7. Mental Health/Illness Variables

10.8. Physical Health/Illness Variables

10.9. Biological Variables

10.10. Likely Universal Correlates of Status

10.11. Closing Comments on Using Likely Universal Correlates of Status in Theory Development and Testing

References

Index

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-805371-3

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Nikki Levy

Acquisition Editor: Nikki Levy

Editorial Project Manager: Barbara Makinster

Production Project Manager: Kiruthika Govindaraju

Designer: Mark Rogers

Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals

Preface

Social stratification refers to the human tendency to form hierarchies. An individual’s position within one of these hierarchies is called his or her social status or socioeconomic status (often abbreviated SES). Variations in social status are among the most widely studied human phenomena in the social sciences (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002, p. 371; Trzaskowski et al., 2014, p. 83). Even disciplines such as biology and medicine frequently include social status variables in their research.

Readers wishing to confirm just how massive the scientific research on social stratification is can go to a search engine such as Google Scholar. Key in any one of the following three terms: social status, social stratification, or socioeconomic status. For each one of these terms, one gets over a million matches (or hits)! The present book cites roughly 4000 studies, obviously a meager sample of what is currently available to the present time. Nevertheless, because the studies cited were not obtained in any systematic way, one can consider them as providing a more or less random sample of the scientific research literature currently available on social stratification.

1. Background

Philosophers have speculated about the nature of social stratification throughout human history, but not until about two centuries ago did scholars begin to utilize the scientific method in their efforts to comprehend social stratification. The discipline that has done the most in this regard is sociology, but other disciplines have made important contributions as well. These disciplines include anthropology, biology, business, criminology, economics, medicine, psychology, and political science.

Early work on this book began back in the mid-1990s when the first author was reading material for lectures in a course on social stratification at Minot State University in North Dakota. While reading, the idea occurred to him that it would be useful to have some sort of grand overview of everything that is known about how social stratification is correlated with so many other human characteristics. From then on, he began accumulating notes and copies of articles about research findings on social stratification and gradually trying to organize them into meaningful summary tables. With considerable help from the two other authors and a publisher willing to take a chance on the book’s marketability, the project finally came to fruition.

Even though this book’s ideal objective was to assemble citations to all of the research findings on traits related to social status, its authors were never under the illusion that such an objective would ever be possible. As already noted, the total amount of research is already far too vast and it continues to grow by thousands every year.

2. Methodological Comments

Identifying Social Status Correlates. When researchers say that a variable is associated with social status, they usually mean that individuals who score high on that particular variable (call it Variable X) are usually high in some measure of social status (such as income), and those who score low on Variable X are generally low in income. This type of a pattern is said to constitute a positive correlation. On the other hand, Variable X might exhibit the opposite pattern with respect to income, i.e., those with high scores on Variable X would be those with low incomes, and those with low scores on Variable X would be high in incomes. This type of relationship is said to be inverse (or negative). For example, as will be shown in Chapter 1, years of education is positively correlated with income. Of course, if neither a positive nor an inverse pattern is detectable, the relationship is said not to exist; in statistical terms, it is declared to not be significant. Details on the various ways correlations are actually calculated can be obtained in textbooks on statistics.

Curvilinearity. Readers will find that the vast majority of relationships discussed in this book are essentially linear in nature, meaning that they at least roughly conform to a straight line (in statistics, called a linear regression line). This means that as the Y Variable goes up a specific amount, so too does the X Variable (a positive correlation), or as the Y Variable goes down a specific amount, the X Variable goes up a specific amount (a negative correlation). However, sometimes simple positive and negative linear correlations do not accurately reflect a particular relationship. The relationship between variables may change or curve as values increase or decrease. These are called curvilinear relationships.

The number of curved lines is infinite, but the most common ones that are recognized in the statistical analyses of human traits are (1) U-shaped, (2) inverted U-shaped, (3) J-shaped, and (4) reversed J-shape. A U-shape relationship would be one in which people with the highest and the lowest incomes both get high scores on Variable X, while people with intermediate incomes have the lowest scores on this variable. An inverted (or upside-down) U-shape relationship would be the exact opposite: Those getting the lowest scores on the variable would have the lowest and the highest incomes, while those with the highest scores on the variable have intermediate incomes.

J-shaped relationships would involve individuals with low and intermediate incomes both having the lowest scores on Variable X while individuals with high incomes would have the highest scores. Finally, a reversed J-shape relationship would mean that the individuals with the lowest incomes would have higher scores on Variable X than those with intermediate and highest incomes. These curvilinear relationships will only be represented in tables where they are pertinent. In the majority of tables, one will only find relationships between variables that are positive, negative, or not statistically significant.

Studies of Continuous Versus Categorical Variables. Most variables to be examined are continuous variables, meaning that their values range from low to high with many (or at least several) intermediate gradations. Examples of continuous variables are academic performance (such as grade point averages and standardized test scores), attitudes (such as self-esteem and voting preferences), and biological traits (such as height and weight).

Noncontinuous variables are said to be categorical. Categorical variables include ones such as sex (male, female), race/ethnicity (such as white, black, Hispanic, etc.), and religious affiliation (such as Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.). When reporting the findings on categorical variables, tables will be configured so as to show all of the possible categorical options in terms of how they are related to social status.

Identifying Where Studies Were Conducted. Each and every study reported in a particular table is subsumed under the country (or countries) in which it was conducted. These countries in turn are identified according to the continent in which they are located. In the case of most islands located in the Pacific or Indian Oceans, they are identified under the continent of Oceania. Increasingly, studies are obtaining research participants from more than one country. When this is the case, the findings are either reported separately for each country or they are reported under the category International.

Focal Categories of Social Status. The majority of tables contained in this book provide space for seven types of social status measures. These are as follows:

1. Parental Status

2. Years of Education

3. Occupational Level

4. Income or Wealth

5. Leadership or Eminence

6. General or Other SES Measures

7. Social Mobility

When there are studies of additional social status measures, these are listed under the category of Multiple or Other SES Measures, often with a qualifier identifying the specific SES measure(s) involved.

Statistical Controls. Sometimes a study may report how Variable X is associated with some aspect of social status (e.g., income) while statistically controlling for some other social status variable (e.g., years of education). There are various multivariate statistical methods for partialing out one presumed independent variable from another presumed independent variable on a dependent variable. Whenever this is done, it is reported in parentheses following the citation to the particular study.

A study might also report results separately according to sex. When this is done, the study citation is followed by either the symbols ♂s for males and ♀s for females. Other studies may only include members of just one sex in their sample; these are so indicated with the same symbols.

Additional Qualifiers. Many other qualifiers are utilized in the tables. For example, one study might be based exclusively on just one segment of a particular population, such as the elderly, Hispanics, or married persons. In each case, they are reported in the form of a specific qualifier appearing in parentheses following the study’s citation.

Citing Studies More Than Once in a Given Table. There are many tables containing an asterisk (∗) following a citation. This denotes that this particular study is cited more than once within that particular table. Among reasons for multiple citations in a table are the following: First, some studies are based on samples drawn from two or more countries. When the findings are reported separately for each country, the study’s findings are so indicated. Second, sometimes the results differ depending on qualifying aspects of the sample. For example, findings might be different depending on race, age, or religion. Third, many studies use more than one measure of social status. In this case, the same study will be cited in more than one column of a particular table.

Chapter Organization. The topics covered in this book are organized into 10 chapters. Each chapter pertains to a fairly specific category of variables that have received research attention regarding their possible association with social status. The chapters are as follows:

Chapter 1—Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Status

Chapter 2—Demographic Factors

Chapter 3—Familial Factors

Chapter 4—Personality and Behavioral Factors

Chapter 5—Attitudes, Preferences, and Beliefs

Chapter 6—Intellectual and Academic Factors

Chapter 7—Mental Health/Illness and Symptomology

Chapter 8—Physical Health Factors

Chapter 9—Biological Factors

Chapter 10—Epilogue: Identifying Universal Social Status Correlates

Chapter 1

Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Status

Abstract

This chapter provides a summary of how social status (or socioeconomic status, SES) is conceptualized and measured. Special emphasis is placed on the three most common SES measures: years of education, occupational level (or prestige), and income or wealth. Other SES measures, such as subjective social status, are also discussed. Findings cited have to do with how each of the various measures of social status correlate with one another regarding both adult social status and the status of their dependent offspring.

Keywords

Adults; Conceptualization; Dependent offspring; Income; Interrelationships between SES measures; Measurement; Neighborhood status; Occupational level; Social status; Socioeconomic status; Subjective social status; Wealth; Years of education

Chapter Outline

1.1 Forms of Social Stratification

1.2 Basic Terminology: Social Status Versus Social Class

1.3 The Tripartite Social Status Measures

1.3.1 Parental Versus Own Social Status

1.3.2 Neighborhood Social Status

1.3.3 Special Issues Surrounding Each of the Tripartite Measures

1.3.3a Special Issues Involving Education Measures

1.3.3b Special Issues Involving Occupational Level Measures

1.3.3c Special Issues Involving Income and Wealth Measures

1.4 Nontripartite Socioeconomic Status Measures

1.4.1 Leadership and Eminence

1.4.2 Social Mobility

1.4.3 Self-Rated Social Class

1.4.4 Subjective Social Status

1.4.5 Ownership Socioeconomic Status Measures

1.4.6 Income-To-Need Measures

1.4.7 Additional Measures of Social Status

1.4.8 Multiple Socioeconomic Status Indexes

1.5 Overall Assessment of Social Status Measurement

1.6 Intercorrelations Between Indicators of Social Status

1.6.1 Years of Education and Occupational Level

1.6.2 Years of Education and Income or Wealth

1.6.3 Occupational Level and Income or Wealth

1.6.4 Subjective Social Status and Objective Social Status

1.6.5 The Tripartite SES Measures and All Remaining SES Measures

1.7 Relationships Between One’s Own Social Status and That of One’s Parents

1.7.1 One’s Own Years of Education and Parental Social Status

1.7.2 One’s Own Occupational Level and Parental Social Status

1.7.3 One’s Own Income or Wealth and Parental Social Status

1.8 Conclusions

1.8.1 Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Status

1.8.2 Intercorrelations Between Various Measures of Social Status

1.8.3 Correlations Between Parental Social Status and Own Social Status

Like other social animals, humans form hierarchies when accessing resources and even when showing deference to others who seem higher in status than oneself (Dumont 1980; Kottak 2004:283; Sapolsky 2004; Knight & Mehta 2014). In studies of nonhuman animals, these hierarchies are usually referred to as dominance hierarchies, and an individual’s position within one of these hierarchies is said to be his/her dominance rank (Hughes 1992; De Vries 1995; Bang et al. 2010).

Among humans, dominance hierarchies have been documented among children and adolescents (Savin-Williams 1979; Mazur 2005). However, in adulthood, particularly in large human societies, the nature of dominance hierarchies are so dependent on cultural artifacts (e.g., money, housing, land holdings) that they are identified under different terminology, collectively known as social stratification. An individual’s position within a stratification hierarchy is usually referred to as his or her social status or socioeconomic status.

This book deals with the science of social stratification. Its objective is to provide readers with a research-based overview of how all manner of human characteristics are associated with social status. In this the first chapter, however, the stage will be set by acquainting readers with how social stratification is conceptualized and measured. The other goal of this initial chapter will be to summarize research findings on how the various main measures of social status appear to be associated with one another.

1.1. Forms of Social Stratification

Human social stratification takes many forms. For example, in foraging societies, social status usually depends on hunting and leadership ability, particularly for males (Gurven & von Rueden 2006). Individuals who consistently bring back favored animal protein for meals are held in higher esteem than those who rarely succeed at hunting.

In parts of the world where agriculture has gradually replaced hunting and gathering, one finds land holdings forming the basis for social stratification. These holdings tend to be transmitted intergenerationally and give rise to what are known as estates, which were highly prevalent in mediaeval Europe (Ertman 1997).

With the rise of agriculture one finds cities slowly emerging with new forms of stratification. These forms are centered on occupational pursuits. As the skills needed for acquiring specialized occupational skills grew, so too did the intergenerational transmission of status associated with occupational classes. Among the best known forms of stratification according to basic occupational classes are known as guilds (Gilbert 1986; Evetts 2003). Even more rigid occupational classes are called castes, with the most famous examples found in India (Blunt 1931; Sinha 1967), although they exist in other parts of the world as well (Dumont 1980).

Probably the most rigid types of stratification come in the forms of slavery and indentured servitude (McSheffrey 1983; Silverman 2001; Ashcroft et al. 2013). Both of these forms involve people being treated as actual property and are often based on race or ethnicity. Apartheid is another type of social stratification that designates people on the basis of race or some other inherited characteristics. The most well-known country that practiced apartheid for several decades was South Africa (Ellis 1993).

In each of the above forms of stratification, individuals are usually designated a social status based on parentage or ethnic ancestry. However, the forms of social stratification that are most common in contemporary societies tend to be less rigid and more nuanced. In other words, individuals are not assigned a social status based simply on that of their parents. Instead, they at least have the chance of moving up or down in status relative to their parents.

1.2. Basic Terminology: Social Status Versus Social Class

Throughout this book, the terms social status and socioeconomic status (or its abbreviation, SES) will be used interchangeably. The term social class, however, will rarely appear. To explain why involves noting that a substantial number of social scientists do not consider social class and social status to be equivalent terms. While all social scientists recognize that social status refers to hierarchies, many if not most envision social class mainly in functional terms (Wohlfarth & Van den Brink 1998; Borrell et al. 2004). Functional aspects of stratification mainly have to do with what societal purpose one is performing (e.g., manual laborer vs. company owner), regardless of any differences that might exist in terms of education or income between these functional groupings.

Here are a couple of illustrations: First, all agree that slaves and slave owners represent two distinct social classes. However, the practice of slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world, although examples of near slavery can still be found (Bush 2014). For this reason, the only way social scientists can now compare traits associated with being a slave as opposed to slave owner is by consulting historic records.

Second, Karl Marx (1887/1996) famously distinguished between two social classes that he saw emerging from the budding process of industrialization during the 18th and 19th centuries. He called one class the bourgeoisie (factory owners or entrepreneurs) and the other class the proletariat (factory workers or employees). While everyone accepts that these are fairly clear classes, can they be reliably arranged into social strata (i.e., into hierarchies)? There are problems in doing so. Even though the average business owners can be thought of as higher in status than the average employee, there are many exceptions. For example, business owners range all the way from individuals who obtain huge profits to those who go bankrupt. Similarly, employees have incomes all the way from those who are paid a minimum wage to CEOs earning lavish salaries along with stock options and annual bonuses. Furthermore, many employees purchase stocks in companies, making them both workers and owners!

Overall, it can be very misleading to equate functional aspects of social stratification such as being an owner of a business as opposed to an employee (i.e., social class) with the strictly hierarchical aspects of social stratification (i.e., social status). The present book is primarily about social status.

Before bringing this particular issue to a close, it should be recognized that the term social class is at least occasionally used in a strictly hierarchical sense. Specifically, individuals are sometimes described as being upper class, middle class, working class, lower class, or some other class. Unfortunately, these terms have never been consistently standardized, and, of course, they are not in the Marxian social science tradition in which social class is a functional descriptor of social inequality rather than a strictly hierarchical descriptor (Wohlfarth & Van den Brink 1998; Borrell et al. 2004).

Because these issues continue to simmer in the field of social stratification, the term social class will only be rarely mentioned throughout this book, and when it is used it will be in the functional not the hierarchical sense of the term. Essentially all of the studies to be cited refer to gradations in social status from high to low. Obviously, those who would like to use the terms social status and social class interchangeably are free to do so, but to minimize confusion, this book will focus on social status.

1.3. The Tripartite Social Status Measures

In one way or another, nearly all scientific measures of social status are based on self-reports. As will be discussed more below, children and adolescents (and even college students) really have no established social status of their own. Their social status is said to be dependent on that of their parents.

The majority of ways researchers assess social status involve three indicators, sometimes known as the tripartite measures (Sirin 2005:418). They are (a) years of education, (b) occupational level (or occupational prestige), and (c) income/wealth. Even though these indicators of social status are widely utilized, they take many forms and cannot be considered equivalent to one another (Geyer et al. 2006). To illustrate this point, imagine how the social status of a janitor with less than a high school education could suddenly change when he/she inherits a fortune from a wealthy uncle or wins a lottery! While such individuals are rare, they do exist, and serve to illustrate that someone’s social status can vary a great deal depending on which social status indicator is being assessed, and it can change overnight. Some researchers combine the tripartite measures according to various weighted formulas, as will be discussed more later, while others treat each tripartite measure as a separate aspect of social status (Ensminger et al. 2003; Geyer et al. 2006; Wolfe 2014:39). Later in this chapter, specific information will be presented regarding the equivalency of the tripartite measures.

1.3.1. Parental Versus Own Social Status

Because people’s years of education, occupational level, and income are usually not attained and more or less stabilized until full adulthood, measuring the social status of children, adolescents, and even young adults presents an obvious problem. Therefore, the social status of nonadults is typically measured in terms of the social status of their family of origin (i.e., the education, occupation, or income of one or both parents). This is known as dependent social status, background social status, or simply parental social status. As a number of studies cited throughout this book will reveal, parental social status often appears to be important. For example, parental status is sometimes even more strongly associated with an individual’s health than is his/her current adult social status.

1.3.2. Neighborhood Social Status

Fairly often, people’s social status is designated in terms of the neighborhood in which they grew up and/or the neighborhood in which they currently live. Nevertheless, even though people’s education or income often resemble the education or income of their neighbors, there are certainly exceptions. Normally, neighborhood social status (also sometimes called community social status or area social status) is assessed in terms of the degree to which the neighborhood as a whole is well maintained, sanitary, and its residents appear prosperous.

Rather than simply considering neighborhood SES measures better or worse than individual or family SES measures, most researchers simply conceive of each of these somewhat different measures reflecting SES from different perspectives. In other words, each one offers at least a slightly different angle from which to view people’s varied social status, all of which could provide helpful insights into how SES can impact and reflect human life and behavior. For example, neighborhood social status may be more important for understanding how social status is related to contracting various diseases, whereas individual social status might better account for links between SES and mental illness.

1.3.3. Special Issues Surrounding Each of the Tripartite Measures

It is widely accepted that no single measure of social status is complete. Instead each measure has advantages and disadvantages relative to one another. Some of the main shortcomings surrounding each of the tripartite measures are briefly identified and discussed below.

1.3.3a. Special Issues Involving Education Measures

Education is the most stable of the three tripartite SES measures in the sense that once individuals attain the education (usually by their mid-20s), it stays with them and does not change throughout life. Occupational levels and especially income, on the other hand, can change often as one goes through life.

1.3.3b. Special Issues Involving Occupational Level Measures

While occupational prestige ratings have been found to remain remarkably stable over time and across countries, there are small variations (Nakao & Treas 1992). Among the main sources for change involve the addition of new occupations. For instance, as numerous new high-technology occupations have come to be recognized in recent decades, some of the older occupations have declined in stature (Spenner 1985).

1.3.3c. Special Issues Involving Income and Wealth Measures

Given that social status is most often conceptualized in terms of access to resources, one might conclude that income (or wealth) measures would be the best for comparing people’s social status. However, there are problems or shortcomings associated with income or wealth measures that need to be recognized. These problems and shortcomings are briefly identified and discussed below.

Income and Wealth Are Different. Income has to do with earnings either by a man or a woman individually (personal income) or together (family or household income). Wealth, on the other hand, involves the assets that individuals or couples have accumulated at any point in time regardless of earning. In most societies, wealth can be accumulated by an individual or family as well as transferred to relatives, usually after an individual dies (depending on inheritance laws).

Variability in Annual Incomes. Incomes are often volatile from one year to the next (Bradley & Corwyn 2002:3728). For instance, individuals can lose their job, suddenly altering their financial wellbeing. On the other hand, they may receive a major promotion and find themselves earning twice as much as they did the year before. Or, if they own a business, their profits may fluctuate from one year to the next. Also, many families have two earners, not just one, so that an individual’s income is not always the same as family income. Despite these qualifications, one study still found the correlation between personal income and family income to be high (i.e., r  =  .73) but obviously far from perfect (Oakes & Rossi 2003:779).

Monetary Values Change Over Time. Due to currency inflation (and occasionally deflation), it is difficult to conduct time series studies in which respondents are asked the amount they earn. One way to avoid currency values changing over time (or between countries) involves asking respondents to rate income (or wealth) in relative terms. For example, a recent study measured income by asking college students to rate their family income using a 10-point scale with 1  =  very low to 10  =  very high (Ellis 2017).

Offspring Rarely Know Their Parents’ Income. Many studies of social status are conducted among adolescents and young adults who are still obtaining their formal education. Consequently, they have not yet begun to establish status apart from their parents. Furthermore, many, if not most, of these individuals do not have a very clear notion of their parent’s income.

Income-to-Need Adjustments Are Often Not Made. As noted earlier, measuring either an individual’s or a family’s income can be misleading without taking into account how many people are depending on the particular income. In other words, a family consisting of just a husband and wife requires considerably less income to live comfortably than a family with five or six children. While a few studies do make such income-to-need adjustments, most do not.

Inheritance of Wealth Can Be Very Consequential. In most countries, an individual’s or family’s wealth can change overnight. Not only can one win a lottery but, much more likely, when a close relative dies, one can inherit a fortune (Szydlik 2004). As will be documented later in this book, these fortuitous sources of wealth can alter many other aspects of social status, including the neighborhood in which one lives and how much education one’s children are able to obtain.

1.4. Nontripartite Socioeconomic Status Measures

Over the years, scientists have used numerous measures of social status in addition to the tripartite measures. These are briefly identified and discussed below.

1.4.1. Leadership and Eminence

Leadership and eminence have to do with individuals being especially prominent in their community or society. For example, a prominent politician might be considered high in social status even if his/her education and income were modest. Similarly, widely known and respected scientists, musicians, or artists are sometimes thought of as being of high social status regardless of any other evidence of status.

1.4.2. Social Mobility

Social mobility involves the degree of change one experiences regarding social status. In some studies, this change is assessed relative to one’s family of origin such as the status of one’s father. This is considered generational mobility. Other studies look at where individuals begin their career and compare it to where they finish their career, termed individual mobility. Most studies of social mobility are of the first type.

1.4.3. Self-Rated Social Class

As noted earlier, there has been a longstanding difference of opinion among social scientists about the equivalency of the terms social status and social class. In other words, can these two terms be used interchangeably or should they be recognized as related although distinct concepts? Alternatively, others have argued that of the three tripartite measures of social status, only occupation can be considered a measure of social class (Krieger et al. 1997).

Examples of studies that use social status and social class as synonymous terms are as follows: In an Australian study, college students were given a nine-point scale anchored at one end with working class and at the other end with upper class and asked to rate their family of origin using this scale (Jetten et al. 2013). Another study, conducted in the United States, asked adult respondents to rate their social class based on the following question: Would you say you are poor, in the working class, the middle class, the upper-middle class or the upper class? (Shinew et al. 1995).

1.4.4. Subjective Social Status

In one way or another, nearly all measures of social status are based on self-reports. For example, when respondents are asked to report their years of education or occupation (which researchers can then score in terms of a rough occupational level), the ultimate source of information comes from people who are willing to cooperate in social science research endeavors. However, especially in recent years, some researchers have come to measure what is known as subjective social status (SSS) (Goodman et al. 2001; 2003:1019; Singh-Manoux et al. 2005). It is considered an alternative to what is termed objective social status such as people simply reporting their years of education, type of occupation, or income.

To measure SSS, respondents are asked to compare themselves to some specified reference group. In the case of adults, the two most common reference groups are the community in which one lives and the country in which one lives. For children or adolescents, the most frequently used reference groups are peers in your neighborhood and the children in your school (e.g., Ghaed & Gallo 2007; Lemeshow et al. 2008). Once a reference group has been provided, respondents are asked to imagine a ladder and then they are given instructions such as the following:

At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off – those who have the most money, the most education and the most respected jobs. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off – who have the least money, least education, and the least respected jobs or no job. The higher up you are on this ladder, the closer you are to the people at the very top; the lower you are, the closer you are to the people at the bottom.

Derry et al. 2013

Sometimes, respondents are asked to provide separate estimates of their SSS using two or more reference groups. For example, several studies have used two or more reference groups in studying SSS (Cundiff et al. 2012; Subramanyam et al. 2012). One reference group might be the community in which you live and the other could be all citizens of the country in which you live (Cundiff et al. 2012). Or when studying adolescents, one study measured school status as well as societal status (Goodman et al. 2003). One research team actually obtained responses to four SSS measures. These were Others in American society, Others of the same race and ethnicity as yourself, Your neighbors, and Your parents when they were your age (LS Wolff et al. 2010a). There are numerous other variations in terms of the types of reference groups that can be used in SSS measures (e.g., Goldman et al. 2006; Miyakawa et al. 2012:594).

Overall, proponents of the SSS approach to measuring social status have argued that these measures provide estimates of a respondent’s sense of place within a hierarchy (Sweeting & Hunt 2014:39). Regarding issues about the validity of SSS measures as opposed to the more conventional objective social status measures, more research is needed. On the favorable side, at least two studies have found that SSS measures are more strongly correlated with health than are conventional objective measures (Singh-Manoux et al. 2005; LS Wolff et al. 2010b). However, casting some doubt on the validity of at least some applications of SSS for measuring social status, the next chapter will show that essentially all research has concluded that whether one uses years of education, occupational level, or income, whites are higher in social status than blacks (Section 2.4.1). However, one study of adolescents in the United States concluded that there was no significant black–white difference in SSS (Goodman et al. 2005a:488). This latter finding causes one to wonder what some SSS measures are in fact measuring.

1.4.5. Ownership Socioeconomic Status Measures

Some researchers have measured social status in terms of home ownership (Hraba & Lee 2002:114; Hesdorffer et al. 2005; LS Wolff et al. 2010a, 2010b) or the size of one’s home (Szram 2006:929; Egeberg et al. 2008). Others have used land ownership as their SES measure (Borgerhoff Mulder 1990). Also, a recent study in China developed a four-item measure of social status based on whether or not adolescents lived in a family where they owned their own car or a computer, took a vacation within the past year, and had their own bedroom (Chen et al. 2016:106). Similarly, a British study used ownership of a family car, a computer, and housing tenure in a research project (Wardle et al. 2004). Another study asked individuals whether or not they owned health insurance as an SES indicator (Woods et al. 2006:13).

1.4.6. Income-To-Need Measures

In some research projects, scientists try to make adjustments for the varying needs faced by a family. To illustrate, consider the case of two families with the same income, but then note that one family has five children while the other has only one. Obviously, it would be misleading to consider these two families equal in social status at least as far as income is concerned. Therefore, numerous studies in recent years have adjusted for varying need factors in calculating social status (e.g., Nyry-Jeter et al. 2010; Hanson et al. 2011; Noble et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2013; Luby et al. 2013; Hackman et al. 2014).

1.4.7. Additional Measures of Social Status

Three additional SES measures are worth identifying. They are as follows.

School Lunch Program Measure. In recent years, many governments sponsor free or nearly free lunches for school children of relatively poor parents (Wardle et al. 2004). At least in the United States, roughly half of all students in most areas of the country qualify for these lunches (Mackey et al. 2015). Several research studies have subsequently used this program in research involving parental social status for elementary and secondary students (Wardle et al. 2004; Harwell & LeBeau 2010; Mackey et al. 2015; Finn et al. 2016:2).

Unemployment Measure. Other studies have used employment/absence-of-employment as a measure of social status (Bartley & Owen 1996; Baron-Epel & Kaplan 2009:1462).

People per Room Measures. Additional studies have sought to at least roughly estimate SES by asking respondents how many rooms and how many people they have in their households. Then the number of rooms is divided by the number of people (Packard et al. 2011; Cavanagh et al. 2013).

1.4.8. Multiple Socioeconomic Status Indexes

An option for measuring social status involves combining two or more of the above-described SES measures. One illustration of this involved a study that measured parental status in terms of all three tripartite measures and then subjected them to factor analysis (Straus et al. 1997:763). This yielded a statistical factor that can then be used to assign a single SES score to each person in a study.

The most widely known and still the most commonly used procedure for combining SES measures into a single index was first developed decades ago by August B Hollingshead (1949, 1975/2011). Known as the Hollingshead four factor index of social status (or simply the Hollingshead status measure), it involved obtaining the years of education and occupational level for both husband and wife and then combining them using a formula. If the wife is not employed outside the home, the husband’s occupational level is normally entered twice to obtain the final score.

Another commonly used combined SES measure is one developed by Otis Dudley Duncan, known as the Socioeconomic Index or SEI (Duncan 1961; Oakes & Rossi 2003). The SEI is primarily a measure of occupational status supplemented with information about average years of education and salaries for each occupation (Hauser & Warren 1997; Duncan & Magnuson 2003; Adams & Weakliem 2011).

1.5. Overall Assessment of Social Status Measurement

Readers can see that social scientists have used, and continue to use, a wide range of social status measures in their research. This reinforces the view that there is probably no single best way to measure SES (Bradley & Corwyn 2002:373). Instead, one needs to recognize that social status is a complex multidimensional concept that can be estimated in numerous ways. The best policy from a research perspective has been to always provide a clear description of how social status was estimated in each study undertaken, with a recognition that at least somewhat different findings are possible when a different social status measure is utilized. Throughout this book, one will see that for many correlates of social status, the findings are not unanimous. In many of these cases, it is reasonable to believe that various forms of measurement error are responsible.

1.6. Intercorrelations Between Indicators of Social Status

The remainder of this chapter will summarize how the various measures of social status are related to one another. We will begin by focusing on how the tripartite measures correlate with one another as well as with other social status measures. After one’s own social status measures are considered in relationship to each other, attention will turn to how individual status measures correlate with parental social status measures.

Scientists are not only interested in trying to clearly conceptualize the variables they wish to study, but they also seek to measure these variables as precisely as possible. The measurement process is sometimes known as operationalizing variables. Regarding social status, researchers typically rely on people’s responses to questionnaires. On these questionnaires, respondents are often asked to report their years of education, type of occupation (if any), and income. Many studies have sought to determine how well responses to these three questions correlate with one another. In other words, are those who are high in education also high in occupational level and in income? The results of studies undertaken to find out are presented below.

In evaluating these findings, researchers would certainly expect responses to all three of these items to be positively correlated to significant degrees since this would suggest that they all have something in common. Furthermore, researchers would like to know just how strongly correlated they actually are. As a general rule of thumb, if the correlations are quite strong—i.e., in the vicinity of .80 or higher—one can consider them to be essentially the same variable. However, if the correlations between two variables are quite a bit lower than .80, one must assume that they are either being poorly measured or that both variables are distinct from one another (even though they might still be related). With these guidelines in mind, the findings of how years of education, type of occupation, and income have been found to be related to one another will now be summarized.

1.6.1. Years of Education and Occupational Level

Table 1.6.1 addresses the issue of how a person’s years of education is related to his or her occupational level. In considering this table, it is worth noting that studies have found people’s perceptions of occupational levels (also called occupational prestige) to be quite similar throughout the world (Ganzeboom et al. 1992; Treiman 2013). In other words, when people in two or more countries are given a list of a wide range of occupations found in both countries and asked to rate them in terms of their prestige or importance, the average ratings given by respondents in these various countries tend to be similar.

As one can see, all of the studies cited in Table 1.6.1 have reported significant positive correlations between years of education and occupational level. The correlation coefficients are usually between .35 and .55 (WW Dressler et al. 1998a:537). This, of course, is low relative to the .80 level one would hope to get if years of education and occupational level were interchangeable concepts. So, it is prudent to say that years of education and occupational levels are related variables, but not identical variables.

1.6.2. Years of Education and Income or Wealth

A great deal of research has been published on how education and income (or wealth) are correlated with one another. Table 1.6.2 summarizes the results. As one might expect, the findings are nearly unanimous in indicating that these variables are positively correlated to significant degrees. Regarding the strength of the correlations, they seem to be somewhat weaker than the correlations between education and occupational levels (as indicated in the previous table), but they are still substantial. Specifically, most of the correlation coefficients between education and income are in the .25 to .45 range (Ornstein 1983:52; WW Dressler et al. 1998a:537). One outlier finding regarding education and income was one reported decades ago where coefficients of .83 for males and .85 for females were reported (Hollingshead 1975/2011:47).

Table 1.6.1

Relationship Between Years of Education and Occupational Level

Table 1.6.2

Relationship Between Years of Education and Income or Wealth

One should keep in mind that people’s incomes can vary considerably from one year to the next (Duncan et al. 1998; Duncan & Magnuson 2003). Also, in families where both adults work outside the home, it can be misleading to determine the income of just one family member. Furthermore, in most countries, substantial wealth can be transferred intergenerationally, especially after death. All of these factors help to explain why associations between education and income, and especially between education and wealth are far from perfect.

1.6.3. Occupational Level and Income or Wealth

Before discussing how occupational level is associated with income (or any other measure of social status, for that matter), it is important to mention how occupational level (also called occupational prestige) is operationalized. In other words, how does one manage to conclude that being a dishwasher in a restaurant is a lower occupational level than say the manager of the restaurant? Part of the answer involves noting that many surveys have been conducted asking people to rank order a list of common occupations regarding their level of prestige. These studies have shown that people throughout the world give similar rankings to the occupations (Ganzeboom et al. 1992; Treiman 2013). One study even compared the ratings given to a list of occupations by 10-year-old children with the ratings given by full adults. It revealed that the average rankings were in fact very similar (Simmons & Rosenberg 1971). Therefore, even though assessing occupational levels require subjective judgments, most people throughout the world have been found to make fairly similar assessments.

So what is it about occupations that give them differential status? Of course, one can first note that highly prestigious occupations tend to be positively correlated with years of education and with income, although exceptions can be cited. For example, ministers and college professors are usually rated quite high in occupational status although their incomes tend to be in a moderate range. Similarly, professional athletes and popular singers are typically rated as having high occupational status even though their years of education are often modest to low. Two other factors that have been found associated with occupations that receive high ratings are that they (1) require a rare but valued set of intellectual or behavioral traits and/or (2) involve substantial control over the work of others (Rose & O’Reilly 1998).

With the nature of occupational level (or prestige) as a backdrop, we can now consider how social status is related to income or wealth. As shown in Table 1.6.3, while the number of studies are not great, they all indicate that persons of high occupational level tend to earn more (including profits) than those of low occupational level. The strength of the relationships varies considerably, depending on whether or not a full range of occupations were sampled. In the majority of studies, the correlations between occupational level and income are in the .30 to .40 range. The only study that reported correlations far outside of this range was by Hollingshead (1975/2011:48) wherein coefficients of .78 for males and .67 for females were reported.

1.6.4. Subjective Social Status and Objective Social Status

As noted earlier, SSS has become a fairly popular method for assessing social status in recent years. Consequently, quite a few studies have been undertaken to determine how well SSS measures correlate with the much more established tripartite and related objective social status measures. A summary of findings from these studies are shown in Table 1.6.4.

Table 1.6.3

Relationship Between Occupational Level and Income or Wealth

Table 1.6.4

Relationship Between One’s Own Subjective Social Status (SSS) and Objective Social Status

Table 1.6.5

Relationship Between the Tripartite Measures of Social Status and All of the Remaining Measures

As one can see, the evidence predominantly supports the conclusion that SSS measures and objective social status measures are positively correlated to statistically significant degrees. However, there are a few exceptions. One is a Mexican study that found no significant correlation between parental years of education and societal SSS among their offspring (Ritterman et al. 2009). Also, a US study found a nonsignificant correlation between income and SSS (Cohen et al. 2008:271), as did another US study of SES and SSS (Ursache et al. 2015). These findings raise doubts over the assertion that SSS is highly correlated with traditional indicators of SES (Reitzel et al. 2010:929), suggesting instead that at least in some circumstances SES and SSS are poorly correlated. More research is needed to determine exactly which types of SSS measures are (and are not) compatible with conventional objective SES measures.

1.6.5. The Tripartite SES Measures and All Remaining SES Measures

As Tables 1.6.1 through 1.6.3 clearly show, the tripartite measures of social status are positively correlated with one another to statistically significant degrees (with just a couple of exceptions in the case of education and income). And, generally, the correlations between the tripartite measures and SSS are also positively correlated to statistically significant degrees (Table 1.6.4).

In Table 1.6.5, correlations between the tripartite measures and other less commonly used objective SES measures are presented. As one can see, all of the correlations are positive and statistically significant (except for occupational level, for which no evidence was located).

1.7. Relationships Between One’s Own Social Status and That of One’s Parents

How does an individual’s own social status (achieved in adulthood) relate to the social status of his or her parents? This question obviously bears on how much social status is stable from one generation to the next. As one will see, the relevant evidence is substantial.

1.7.1. One’s Own Years of Education and Parental Social Status

Table 1.7.1 displays the results from studies of relationships between years of education and other measures of social status. It shows that the vast majority of studies have found years of education to be positively correlated with parental social status, no matter which indicator of parental social status is being considered. The strength of these relationships is most often in the r  =  .30 to .40 range.

1.7.2. One’s Own Occupational Level and Parental Social Status

The research findings pertaining to how one’s own occupational level correlates with the social status of one’s parents are summarized in Table 1.7.2. With one exception, all of these studies indicate that high occupational levels among offspring are associated with all available measures of high parental social status. The lone exception was a study limited to a sample of college students. In this case, there was no significant correlation between the occupational level of offspring and their parents (Hout 1988).

1.7.3. One’s Own Income or Wealth and Parental Social Status

Numerous studies have been undertaken to determine if an individual’s own income or wealth is associated with his/her parent’s social status. Table 1.7.3 shows that these studies have concluded that positive correlations exist, especially regarding comparisons of income/wages. The only qualification is that one study found that the correlations between income and parental social status were reduced to nonsignificance by statistically controlling for an individual’s years of education and his/her score on intelligence