Class and Status in Family Research

Class and Status in Family Research
Author(s): Luther B. Otto

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 37, No. 2 (May, 1975), pp. 315-332
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/350965
Accessed: 08-08-2016 05:50 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley, National Council on Family Relations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family
This content downloaded from 177.42.199.50 on Mon, 08 Aug 2016 05:50:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Class and Status in Family Research*

LUTHER B. OTTO**
Washington State University
This paper reviews family research practice in operationalizing social position and
outlines the theoretical and methodological implications of using a variety of class
and status indicators. It is argued that alternative indices embody competing theoretical conceptualizations and that researchers are ill-advised to employ specific
measures without endorsing the underlying theoretical rationale. The class-status
distinction is examined in some detail. It is proposed that adopting the refined con-
ceptualizations and operationalizations that have developed in the occupational

prestige approach to social stratification will facilitate building a cumulative literature of family theory and research involving social stratification variables.
In outlining strategies for developing cumula-
where most research excitement is being
tive family theory, Aldous (1970) considers
generated and to explore those areas for their

possible theoretical payoff in family studies.
literally, the strategy advocated is neither a
borrowed theory strategy. Its purpose is to

draw upon the rapidly accumulating litera-
the potential of the "borrowed theory"

approach. Lest the label be taken too
wholesale pirating of grand theoretical
schemes nor their uncritical application to

family phenomena in the vague hope that
"they just might work." Rather, the
borrowed theory is a calculated approach, a

strategy often overlooked but whose procedures hold promise of fruitful payoff for
family studies. An untoward consequence of
research specialization is the problem of
researcher isolation, a vexation of neither
greater nor lesser severity among family
specialists. Researcher isolation is a problem
to whatever extent it minimizes the cross-
fertilization of interdependent substantive

fields. Inasmuch as the growth of family
theory both depends upon and contributes to

the progress of theory in related fields, one
way to build a cumulative theory, suggests
Aldous, is to link related area findings with
family studies. Explicitly, the family theoristresearcher might profitably utilize and explicate concepts whose relevance is not
restricted to any one substantive area. Aldous
counsels that a fruitful strategy is to observe
*This paper was written in conjunction with research
supported by The Grant Foundation, Inc., which the

author gratefully acknowledges. The substance of this
paper was presented at the annual meetings of the

American Sociological Association, Montreal, August
1974. Duane F. Alwin's critical evaluation of an earlier
draft of this manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.
**Department of Sociology and Social Research
Center, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99163.
This paper is an application of the
ture based on the theoretical reorientation
suggested by the generally demographic
approach to stratification' and to introduce

relevant conceptualizations and findings to
family studies. That family processes are
closely associated with family position in the

societal hierarchy is a sociological truism.
Such standard family variables as size of
sibship, age at marriage, the probability of
premarital pregnancy, fertility, reported
levels of marital adjustment, divorce and
separation rates, childrearing practices and
socialization patterns, are but examples of
empirical regularities varying by the socioeconomic level at which they occur. Family
researchers recognize the efficacy of stratification concepts for their explanations.
That the relationship is symbiotic is
evidenced by the important contribution
family variables have made to stratification
studies. Indeed, in his Imperialism and
Social Classes, Schumpter (1955) pointed out
that "the family, not the individual person, is
the true unit of class and class theory."
Father's and mother's levels of education,
family socioeconomic status, parental influ-
ence and encouragement, race, size of

sibship, whether wife works, are but
'Stratification is used in this paper as a general
concept embracing such more specialized areas of study

as status attainment or achievement processes, social
mobility, studies of social class and social inequality.
May 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 315
examples of family variables that have been

examined in current models of the status
attainment process (Sewell, Haller, and
Ohlendorf, 1970; Duncan, Featherman, and

Duncan, 1972; Sewell and Hauser, 1972).
Estimating spouse effects (e.g., sex roles and
marital stability) on socioeconomic attain-
ments is an example of an area of inter-
penetration shared by the subdisciplines that

remains largely unexplored.
Although stratification and family studies
have enjoyed a close relationship historically,
current family theory and research does not
always reflect an understanding of the
theoretical developments that have generated

the recent flourish of research activity and
publication in studies of social inequality. As
a consequence, family theory and research
incorporating stratification variables might
also be foregoing the rewards of the conceptual developments. Indeed, this paper begins
with the simple observation that at a time
when stratification research is almost wholly
committed to prestige definitions of social
position, family research continues to rely
almost exclusively on the social class concept.
This is clearly an anomaly for as Bendix
(1974:153), discussing class and status, has

poignantly observed: "[not class but] status
groups are rooted in family experience.'" This
paper will explore that anomaly in greater
detail, elaborating the theoretical and

methodological implications of using a
variety of class and status indicators in family

research. After demonstrating the prevailing
wide diversity of practice among family

researchers in ascertaining family social
position, this paper will summarize relevant
conceptualizations and findings from stratifi-
cation studies, past and present, and will

outline the theoretical possibilities and
promise of applying multidimensional status
conceptualizations in family theory and
research.
OPERATIONALIZATIONS OF SOCIAL
POSITION IN FAMILY RESEARCH
In reviewing journal articles using social

class as an explantory variable published in
the American Sociological Review (ASR)

between 1963 and 1968, Haug (1972:420)
reports that the Hollingshead Index of Social

Position (ISP), a composite measure of social
class, was employed eleven times and the

Duncan Socioeconomic Index (SEI), an
indicator of occupational status, appeared

ten times, then concluded: "If sociological
indices can be said to have careers, as we
begin the 1970s the Hollingshead scheme is in
a gradual decline, whereas the Duncan SEI is

at the peak of its popularity." That Haug's
judgment was accurate but premature is

demonstrated by our own review of ASR
articles published since 1969 using social
class. Over this period five used the Hollings-
head ISP, the composite measure, compared

with sixteen that employed the Duncan SEI,
the measure of occupational status.
The operational shift in method of
establishing social position is of interest and
importance not because it marks the decline
in popularity of one indicator and the
high-tide influence of another, but because

the change in indicators signals a conceptual
shift in the theories undergirding the research
reported. That family theorists and re-
searchers have not followed the dramatic shift
to status measures underway in sociological
research in general is evident from a compari-
son of social position indicators used in
research published in the Journal of Marriage
and the Family (JMF) and the ASR over the

same period, 1969 to present.2 During that
period family research reported in JMF

favored the Hollingshead ISP composite
indicator of class over the Duncan SEI
2In the period 1969 to present, 43 studies reported in

JMF controlled on social position. Thirteen (30 per cent)
of them used occupational codes, 17 (40 per cent) used

composite indicators, 8 (19 per cent) used other status
indicators, 1 (2 per cent) used special purpose classifications, and 4 (9 per cent) failed to define the operational
procedures. Of the studies using occupational codes, 3

used the Duncan SEI, 7 used a Census classification, 0
used the North Hatt scale, 0 used the NORC codings,
and 3 used ad hoc occupation codes. Of the studies using
composite indicators, 7 used the Hollingshead ISP and
10 used ad hoc composites. Of studies using other status

indicators, 4 used education, 3 used income, and 1 used
house type.
By comparison, 74 studies reported in the ASR over
the same period controlled on social position. Fifty-nine
(80 per cent) used occupational codes, 10 (13 per cent)
used composite indicators, 2 (3 per cent) used other

status indicators, 3 (4 per cent) used special purpose
classifications, and 0 failed to define the manner of
operationalization. Of the studies using occupational
codes, 16 used the Duncan SEI, 3 used Census classifications, 2 used the North Hatt scale, 6 used the NORC
codings, and 32 used ad hoc occupational codes. Of the
studies using composite indicators, 5 used the

Hollingshead ISP and 5 used ad hoc composites. Of
studies using other status indicators, 2 used education, 0

used income, and 0 used house type.
316 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY May 1975

indicator of occupational status by an article
dichotomizes social class on three criteria:
relative use of other prestige and class
mother's level of educational achievement;
count ratio of 7 to 3. Examination of the
indicators reveals that the pattern of usage is

not restricted to the comparative frequencies
of the Hollingshead ISP and the Duncan SEI.

Indeed, 30 per cent of all JMF articles using
stratification variables made use of some
indicator of prestige compared with 80 per

cent of the ASR articles; and 40 per cent of
the JMF articles used a composite indicator
of class compared with 13 per cent in the
ASR. The JMF articles not only used prestige
indicators more sparingly but also employed
fewer alternatives. Thus, for example, the
North Hatt and NORC codings do not
appear. Further, family researchers continue

to operationalize "social class" with measures
of income, education, and house-type (19 per
cent of the articles using class), procedures
seldom any longer observed in general studies
family income, father's occupation, and
Geismar and Gerhart (1968) employ a

modified Hollingshead two factor ISP;
Lambrechts (1971) defines class in terms of

respondent's income. Other family research
defines class primarily in terms of respondent's residency. Thus, Tallman (1969) draws
a working-class sample of husbands and
wives living in a working-class suburban tract
development and husbands and wives living

in a central district: Rodman (1969) selected
women from within a low-income housing
project; Johnson (1970) selected couples from
middle-class suburbs; and Burr (1970) used
census tracts. Each of the categories resulting
from these assorted classificatory schemes is

identified by the author as a "class. " In some
instances the labels "class" and "status" are
used interchangeably, e.g., Maranell et al.
(3 per cent in ASR articles). Finally, 9 per

cent of the JMF studies using measures of
class employed the social class concept without reporting its operational definition.3 The
(1970) and Straus (1971).

The question, "what do such diverse class
fact that the recent decade review made no
aesthetics and nomenclature. Rather, there is
mention of the diverging pattern of theoreti-
involved an issue central to the integrity of

scientific research, the general methodological issue of validity, the question of what is
cal conceptualizations and research operationalizations admits to the possibility that
some family researchers may be unaware of

the availability of social status indicators in
general and occupational prestige in particular, may be uninformed regarding the theoretical implications of status concepts, and
may be unacquainted with the potential for
status indicators in family theory and
research.
Examples of continuing diversity of

classificatory schemes of family social
position abound in the current family
literature. Thus, Renne (1970) employs the

standard white-blue collar occupational
dichotomy; Groat and Neal (1973) define

working and middle class by a composite
indicator consisting of female's education
and male's occupation; Kerckhoff (1972)
separates three classes based on the Duncan
SEI (0-44, 45-74, 75+); Brody (1968)
referents have in common?" cannot be
dismissed as a trivial preoccupation with
the underlying concept that is being
measured? Explicitly, are education, income,

and census tract membership conceptually
equivalent? Of course not. And the re-
searcher does his reader and his discipline a

disservice by burying this fact under the label
social class. Indeed, in exploring income as

an independent variable in family research,
Cutright (1970, 1971a, 1971b) concludes that
"using education, occupation, or both as
proxy measures for male income is unsatis-
factory" (1970:628). Ideally, theoretical
definitions and operationalizations should be

associated on a one-to-one basis (Blalock,
1960). If the operational definition changes,
one must ask the question of conceptual
equivalence, whether the measurement has

anything to do with what was theoretically
intended. Failure to use conceptually equiva-
class or status variables allows the reader no opportunity
lent measures leads to one of two results, both

unproductive of cumulative theory: results in
conflict with the findings of other investiga-
equivalent literature. The assumption that the bases for

operationalizing class are known by the reader is clearly
tenuous given the diversity of practice in current family
comitant consistency with what it is that the

results are consistent about. In either case,
'Failure to define operationalizational procedures of
to compare the reported research with conceptually
research.
tions, or consistent results without con-
wide diversity of practice disguised by a
common label is not an efficacious approach
to building a cumulative body of family
in its denotative properties, serve a more

general purpose in its connotative usages, was
most lamentable. Examples of perpetuating

the practice in family theory and research
theory and research.

The following section outlines the theoretical and methodological bases for the princi-
were cited above.
concept. The discussion also establishes the
been the issue of what a social class is
pal operationalizations of the social class
background for a subsequent review of multidimensional status indicators.

CLASS AS AN INDICATOR OF
FAMILY SOCIAL POSITION
Social class has been an especially elusive

concept, as sequential reviews of stratification theory and research amply demonstrate
(Gross, 1949; Duncan and Artis, 1951;
Pfautz, 1953; Lasswell, 1969; Thielbar and
Feldman, 1972). While the unidimensional
Marxian conception and the multidimensional Weberian conception of stratification are

readily cited as primary sources, neither
Marx nor Weber indicated how to measure
the phenomena of which they wrote so
passionately. The functionalist controversy

(Parsons, 1957, 1963) and the Davis-Moore
debate (see the collected documents in
Bendix and Lipset, 1966) further complicated

understanding of the causes and consequences of social inequality. Unfortunately,
the conceptual morass that followed confused
the basic theoretical and methodological
issues, and indexing social position was beset

by disagreements whether social differentiation is a function of the local community or
society at large (Hatt, 1950), whether differentiation is a discrete or continuous variable
(Landecker, 1960), whether social position is

a subjective phenomenon scaled by self-re-
port or an objective phenomenon to be scored
by independent indicators (Barber, 1957),
and, of course, whether the phenomenon is

unidimensional or multidimensional, hence
reflected in single or multiple indicators
(Lenski, 1966; Runciman, 1968). Given the

conceptual ambiguity, it is understandable
that consensus on measurement also eluded
the discipline. In fact, the competing
conceptualizations lead to different indices,

each professing to measure the same thing
which was labelled "social class," but in fact
Central to the conceptual confusion has
theoretically and how it is measured. Hodge
and Siegel (1968:316) argue convincingly
that, whatever else may be attributed to social

classes, if classes exist at all they must exhibit
certain properties: they must be bounded,

ordered, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive.
To speak of social classes as bounded means
that a rule can be established by which to
determine whether a particular individual is
to be included or excluded from membership.
To speak of the ordering of classes is to
propose that there is a criterion according to

which the bounded classes can be arranged
into a single hierarchy. Mutual exclusiveness
simply means that social class membership is
unambiguous, that membership in one class
precludes membership in others. The ar-
rangement is exhaustive if each person in the
social system can be assigned a class
membership, a property assumed by most

researchers. Finally, individuals in a social
system may vary in their awareness of the
existence and form of the class system, their
own class membership, the class membership

of others, and the rules by which the class
membership of individuals is determined.
The form and extent of awareness also have
direct implications for the methods by which
social classes may be measured.

The properties of social classes and the
form and extent of individual awareness of a
class system assist us in differentiating the

alternative conceptualizations and strategies
that have been employed in measuring social
class. Five alternative measurement strate-
gies, each based on a peculiar conception of
what it is that is being measured, can be
identified in the literature and are isolated for

closer examination.4
(1) Informer ratings. In small communities, where the kinship system is closely knit
and "everybody knows everybody else," it was
reasoned that one may ascertain the relative
social standing of families by soliciting
each tapped only those features of social

inequality emphasized by the respective
invidious comparisons from knowledgeable
tice of making a particular definition, specific
4This subject is discussed more fully by Hodge and

Siegel (1968:316ff.).
conceptualizations. In retrospect, the prac-
informants. Thus, raters employed by
Kaufman (1944) and Lenski (1952) identified

an average number of 6.2 and 5.4 prestige
classes with standard deviations of 1.6 and
1.1, respectively, compelling Lenski (1952:

142) to conclude that "no system of discrete,
perceived social classes existed in the
community." Rater disagreement over the
number of classes in a community raises
serious questions about the existence of
bounded classes.
(2) Self-Identification. In medium and
larger sized places, especially urban areas,
the use of raters founders as an efficient and
reliable method for establishing the relative

social position of large numbers of people.
But though a common source of general
knowledge of the social positions of others

may not exist, Centers (1949:27) reasoned
ment a common awareness of the class
structure shifted interest away from rating

individuals to rating more abstract cues that
might serve as criteria for estimating relative
social standings. Chapin (1936), for example,

developed a Social Status Scale based on an
enumeration of 17 items of living-room

equipment. Sewell (1940) combined three
subscales-indices of material possessions,
cultural possessions, and social participa-
tion-into a composite Farm Family Socio-
economic Status Scale.7 Davis (1956) determined the relative social standing of families
by matching respondent's living-room characteristics with pre-evaluated living-room

pictures. There is an inherent obsolescence
factor in attempting to index status by noting
the characteristics of respondents' dwelling
units in that possessions change radically over
that a consensus might be present concerning
time and the scales are quickly outdated.
that individuals could accurately locate
selected occupations as indicators for the

relative social standing of the position
the shape of the social class structure and
themselves within it. He proceeded by simply
asking respondents their class identification.

The self-identification method is particu-
larly sensitive to the class categories identified
by the inquirer, however, and the evidence

supports not the presence but the absence of
a consensus on class structure among urban
dwellers.6 The problem with self-identification techniques is that they invite wide
variation in responses dependent upon
whether class categories are presented as
,forced alternatives or not and, if alternatives
are provided, which alternatives are speci-
fied. The problem with specifying alternatives
is that the number and designation of classes

is arbitrarily advanced by the researcher
rather than empirically demonstrated.
(3) Life-style indicators. Failure to docu'in addition, the Warner (1941-1959) studies reveal
the class-bias of an individual's basic conceptual
apparatus, the fact that one's perception of other classes
is heavily influenced by his own position within the
structure.
6When asked "What social class are you a member
of?" or when forced to choose between membership in
the "upper," "middle," or "lower" class, 80 to 90 per
cent identify themselves as middle class with negligible
proportions electing either extreme or altogether

disavowing the existence of social classes (Hodge and
Siegel, 1968). Center's research (1949) further demonstrates that adding a "working class" category to the
tripartite division results in 50 per cent of the respondents aligning themselves with the "working class" and
only about 30 per cent retaining a "middle class" identi-
fication in the fourfold scheme.
The best known of these studies used
incumbents (Counts, 1925; National Opinion

Research Center, 1947; and the 1963
replication by Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi,

1966). Evaluative studies were first conducted
to rank occupations on the basis of prestige.

Subsequent research then established individual prestige rankings by assigning indivi-
duals the occupational prestige scores
determined in the evaluative studies. This
procedure involved substantial subjectivity

(Duncan, 1966a:110-114) inasmuch as the
evaluative studies provided prestige ratings
for only a small fraction of all possible
occupations appearing in a random sample of

the population and scores for non-appearing
occupations had to be interpolated. However,
interrater reliabilities of the order of r = .98
from widely diverse groups (Reiss, 1962:189)

encouraged further development of the basic
technique. Moreover, the evaluation of
occupations proved to be largely invariant

under widely varying methods of measurement (Hodge and Siegel, 1969).
(4) Sociometric relations. Observers have
noted that especially "the upper classes are
organized into social cliques and exclusive
clubs" (Warner, 1949:12). The fact that

cliques and organizations represent networks
of sociometric ties suggested the possibility of
delimiting the boundaries of social classes by

'The problems inherent in constructing composite
indicators are discussed below.
examining the interpersonal relationships of
Edwards (1933) first addressed this problem

by arranging the detailed occupational cate-
intraclass correlation of .52 between the

Sewell Socioeconomic Status Scale scores of
homogeneous groupings with respect to the

kinds of work performed. Most manual
individuals of comparable social standing.

Thus, Duncan and Artis (1951) report an
households involved in mutual visiting
relationships, which indicates a tendency for

families to establish social ties with their
status equals.8 However, because the sociometric techniques do not reveal the relative
order of cleavages identified, the approach is
vulnerable in that the actual ordering of
classes depends upon the potentially differing
subjective judgments of participants in the

social system. Further, the magnitude of the
gories of the 1930 census into relatively
occupations were classified according to
levels of skill. White-collar employees were
differentiated primarily by type of work. The
major occupational groupings were then

ordered on socioeconomic grounds.10 The
resulting detailed socioeconomic groupings of

occupations continue to be widely used by
researchers. Indeed, the current major

occupational groupings of the U.S. Census
are modifications of the original Edward's
social relationship varies widely across studies
classification. Charles (1948), Blishen (1958),
enough to unequivocally establish class
occupational categories following other cri-
and in no case are the associations large
boundaries. Duncan and Artis conclude:
If the socioeconomic status score distribution were
divided into class intervals, no doubt "cleavages"

could be shown to exist between "classes" so de-
fined. However, inspection of sociometric charts

gives no indication of the most appropriate breaking points for such divisions,9 and there is, accord-
ingly, no unique solution to the problem of the
and Bogue (1963) have also ordered census
teria.
Duncan's (1961a) Socioeconomic Index
(SEI) is perhaps the best known of these

indices and is the most widely used by
students of social inequality because of the

elegance of his methodology in summarizing
the income and education distribution of
number of classes and their boundaries. (1951:

24-25)
detailed occupation groups and of deriving

weights for the summary measures. On the
(5) Objective indicators. Researchers with
Research Center study of occupational pres-
substantive interests other than stratification
have found it expedient to form indices of

social status and social class from such
objective indicators as occupation, education,
basis of the classic National Opinion
tige by North and Hatt (1947), Duncan

assigned prestige scores to 45 detailed
occupational categories in the 1950 U.S.
and income. Though each has figured
Census using a multiple regression equation

to establish weights for the education and
occupation has been the most important, for
groupings, then applying the weights to the
prominently as an indicator of social position,
reasons later elaborated. The principal
difficulty with employing occupation as an
indicator of social status has been the
problem of reducing the thousands of distinct
jobs appearing in the labor force to manageable and relatively homogeneous occupational groupings. The census statistician Alba M.
"Similar associations are reported by Hodge and Siegel
(1968) for data on a hacienda and a peasant farming
?community in Costa Rica.
'The problem of locating alleged disjunctures is not

readily resolved because there is no criterion of what
constitutes a break. The ambiguity in meaning of any
break in a status continuum is intensified when more

than one stratification variable enters consideration and
the disjunctures on alternative continua are not aligned.

If alternative bases of classification do not yield classes
with identical membership, such procedures cannot provide a valid scheme for determining the class structure of
a community.
income components of the occupational
measures of education and income known for
all occupations." The SEI has been

developed for all occupations referenced by
the Alphabetical Index of Occupations and
'oHodge and Siegel (1966) provide a detailed
discussion of problems associated with the Edward's
groupings.
" Because the scale was compiled solely from the two
objective characteristics, education and income, certain
anomalies have been reported. For example, inasmuch
as clergymen typically earn small salaries, their SEI score
is considerably lower than that assigned by the more
subjectve procedures. Similarly, farmers and such blue-
collar workers as machinist and carpenter are also
seemingly underrated whereas newspaper personnel and

sanitation workers appear to be overrated. Nonetheless,
after reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of nine
prominent status scales, Robinson et al. (1969:335) rate
the Duncan SEI as "superior for most survey and large
sample situations."
Industries12 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1960).

While there is no lack of alternative occupational status scales (see Robinson et al., 1969:
ch. 14), none but Siegel's (1970) prestige
index have been as widely standardized as the
Duncan Socioeconomic Index. Standardized
conventions for assigning explicit SEI scores

eliminate subjective judgments and thereby
insure maximum comparability across projects employing indicators of occupational
status.
Whereas the Duncan SEI maintains
prestige scores in raw form ranging from 0 for
a laborer in the tobacco industry to 96 for a
dentist, two other prominent objective status
indicators reduce raw scores to a few
occupational groupings. Thus, Warner et al.

(1949), in constructing the Index of Status
Characteristics (ISC), reduce scale scores
ranging from 12 to 84 to five ordered
categories. Likewise, Hollingshead and Red-
lich (1958), in constructing the Index of
Social Position (ISP), reduce scale scores
ranging from 20 to 134 to a five-tiered

scheme."13 Both indices are composites.
Warner et al.'s ISC is based on differentially

weighted seven-point scales for occupation,
source of income, type of house, and dwelling
area. Hollingshead and Redlich's ISP is

based on a seven-point education scale, a
Employing such objective indicators of
socioeconomic status as education, occupa-
tion, and income, has this to recommend

them: they are relatively easy data to gather,
are of demonstrable reliability, and are

conceptually unambiguous. These credentials
are discussed more fully below.
Informed ratings, self-identification, lifestyle indicators, sociometric techniques, and
objective indicators have all been used to
measure family social position. What is
central to our thesis is that alternative
measures embody competing theoretical
conceptualizations of what it is that is being

measured, and the researcher is ill-advised to
employ a measure without endorsing the
underlying theoretical rationale.
CLASS VERSUS STATUS
In systematically reviewing alternative
conceptualizations and operationalizations of

the class concept, we identified invalidating
challenges to its conceptual integrity. Fore-
most among these are the lack of correlations
of rank among alleged alternative indicators
of class and an absence of unambiguous
disjunctures on stratification variables.
One consequence of the existence of
modest relationships between indicators of

social status is that individuals with disparate
six-point residential area scale, and a

seven-point occupation scale, each differentially weighted. Due to the fact that both
indices rely on familiarity with the person's
residential area, their applicability is largely
tions, the incidence of status crystallization is
further limitation of both measures, later
tightly-knit arrangements of objective status
limited to single community surveys. A
discussed in detail, accompanies the con-
struction of composite indicators.
'2The Alphabetical Index is a manual summarizing
more than 20,000 jobs by 296 detailed occupation titles

and some 18,000 industries summarized by 149 detailed
industry titles.
13Highly correlated (r = .86) with the Hollingshead
and Redlich ISP is the Ellis et al. (1963) Index of Class
Position (ICP) which combines objective and subjective

measures into a composite indicator. The ICP is based
on the individual's occupation, rated on the seven-point
ISP, and the individual's subjective perception of his

class standing (see the discussion of Centers, 1949,
above). ICP scores range from 2 to 12. Ellis et al. (1963)

present evidence that the ICP is a slightly better predictor than the ISP, and the ICP is applicable to multicommunity research. The index characteristics have not
yet been established by a large and representative
sample, however.
configurations of, e.g., education, occupation, and income, are free to adopt similar
class identifications. Indeed, under the
conditions imposed by these loose associaexpected to be low. The absence of more
indicators around which classes may crystallize makes consensus regarding class identifications ambiguous if not impossible. Because
alternative indicators of social class have
failed to demonstrate the existence of group-
ings of people worthy of the label in

contemporary U.S. society, many have
argued that classes are "disappearing" from

the American scene (Faris, 1960), that classes
are merely "reifications" of the investigator's
conceptual apparatus conveying a false impression of fixity and disjunctiveness within

the social structure (Bott, 1970), that classes
are "fictitious solutions for the artificial prob-
lem of where class boundaries really belong"

(Duncan, 1968:694), and even that...
the term social class is by now useful in historical
sociology, in comparative or folk sociology, but
that it is nearly valueless for the clarification of the
data of wealth, power, and social status in contemporary United States and much of Western
society in general. (Nisbet, 1970:570)
Many reputable students of social differentia-
tion and inequality have challenged the

validity of the social class concept and
especially its application to contemporary
western industrialized societies.
The argument advanced, that social class14

is not the most productive analytical concept
for analyzing contemporary industrialized
stratification systems, has been labelled a
"realist" position by Wrong (1969:513). The
realist position maintains that, if social class
is to be a valid research concept, it must have
an objective referent in reality which exhibits
identifiable properties, and that failure to
locate such groups invalidates the conceptual
scheme. In contrast, the "nominalist"
position does not presuppose that social
classes are identifiable and discrete cleavages

of people in the real world. Class structures
are advanced as products of the researcher's
organizing touch, as convenient and useful
It must be understood that questioning the
existence of social classes as defined by the

realist perspective is not a denial of social
inequality (Wrong, 1969). Indeed, inequalities in the distribution of income, invidious
rankings of occupations with respect to
prestige, and differential allocations of power
and authority may be solidly entrenched

despite the absence of social classes. The
thrust of the realist position is not a denial of
inequality but an initiative to more adequately take into account the subtle gradations of
inequality. Therefore, individuals are grouped
and ranked not according to the conveniences
of the analyst, but according to their relative
position along status continua, which, we
argue, more adequately capture the nature of

inequalities in contemporary industrialized
societies.
Svalastoga (1965:10) argues convincingly
that whether stratification variables are best
regarded as discrete or continuous is an
empirical question demonstrable by the conditions governing the specific society under
consideration. To the extent that possession
classificatory schemes for studying variations
of desired and scarce goods is concentrated in
reality of the groupings is not necessarily
distinguished from their contemporaries, a
abound. '5
'4This presentation ignores the theoretical problems

raised by the concepts class and social class. These may
obtains. However, if in a society most people

differ minutely along a continuum, then a
model incorporating continuous status varia-
accommodative relations between social strata; second,
objective social structure.
in human behavior. Though the objective
asserted, evidences of nominalist reification
be summarized as those relating to, first, the
the growth of "class consciousness" or awareness of
common and like interests on the part of people similarly
situated in a stratification system; and, third, the
emergence therefrom of individual, mass, and collective

action oriented to conflict over class interests (Duncan,
1968). Dahrendorf (1959) has argued forcefully that class
as a concept should be reserved for analysis of the

dynamics of social conflict as distinct from stratum,
which describes hierarchical systems at a given point in
time. The concept social class, by comparison, may

involve differential association, different life styles,
different degrees of social influence, or a consciousness

of different social roles and social norms. With apologies
to the conflict theorists, we do not observe the class and
social class distinction in the present discussion.
'5Though not always identified by the realist-nom-
inalist label, the debate over the objective reality of social
classes has a long history in stratification literature.

What has not always been acknowledged, however, is
that without exception the major nineteenth and
twentieth century class theorists-e.g., Marx, Schumpeter, Weber, and Warner-were unmistakeably realists
in orientation, regardless of their theoretical nuances.
Clearly, they held in common a belief that social classes
were objective realities, not artifactual constructs.
the hands of a few who are clearly
discrete model of stratification variables
bles more adequately approximates the
Support for the status continuum hypothe-
sis in modern U.S. society has accumulated

from numerous sources reporting findings
incompatible with the conventional image of
discrete social classes (Kornhauser, 1939:
250, 261; Myrdal, 1944:675; Cox, 1948:
301-310; Lenski, 1952:139-144; Hetzler,

1953:493-497; Cuber and Kenkel, 1954:12,
23-29, 150ff, 303-309; Barber, 1957:77;

Hear, 1957:541-545). Doubts regarding the
existence of discrete social classes were
Central to their definitions of class was the notion of
individual and group awareness. Throughout their

writings there reappears a preoccupation with the
process of class formation, the problem of class cohesion,

and the concrete causes and conditions of an historically
given class structure. The prospect that the major class

theorists exercised themselves at such considerable
length thinking it a matter of indifference whether
classes really existed in the experience of their members
is categorically untenable.
further provoked by the observation that

panels of well-informed local citizens showed
no substantial agreement on the number of
social classes in their community [see discussions of Kaufman (1944) and Lenski (1952)
above], and by the fact that the discrepancy
between number of classes identified by
respondents and raters (Centers, 1949;

Herman, 1962) was even greater than the
discrepancy among raters.'6 Such inferential

findings are reinforced by more conclusive
evidence from a study employing direct
methods for detecting the presence or
absence of structural divisions (Landecker,
1960:868-877). Landecker's investigation revealed the presence of one major boundary
dividing a very small and topmost strata from
the bulk of the population; but "below this

elite boundary the dominant feature is a
status gradation of considerable continuity"
(1960:877). The empirical evidence supports
the status continuum hypothesis.
The absence of sizeable correlations of
rank among alternative indicators of social

class coupled with empirical support for the
status continuum hypothesis prompt consideration of social status as a family
variable.
SOCIAL STATUS
AS A FAMILY VARIABLE
The generally demographic approach to
stratification presupposes not the reality of a
class system but the reality of a status
system. " Theoretically, status conceptualiza-
tions are based on Weber's multidimensional
theory of social differentiation. Warner's
community studies lead him to essentially the
same conclusion, that other than strictly

economic criteria govern the differentiation
of individuals and, therefore, their life
chances-Weber emphasized that economic
differentiation is not the only dimension
along which society is stratified. Men are also
differentiated on an honorific dimension, in
terms of the prestige accorded them by
others. The members of a prestige strata have
in common a distinctive style of life, accept

each other as equals, and restrict noninstru-
mental social intercourse to the ingroup.
Further, individuals play different roles in the

struggle for political power, which constitutes
yet a third status dimension distinct from
class position and prestige status. (Power
continues to be a neglected subject in Western
stratification research.) The basic difference
between the Marxian conception of class

position and the Weberian concept of
prestige status is that " 'classes' are stratified

according to their relations to the production
and acquisition of goods; whereas 'status

groups' are stratified according to the
principles of their consumption of goods as
represented by special 'styles of life' "
(Weber, 1946:193).
Bendix (1974:156) illuminates the relevance of the class-status distinction for family
studies from an historical perspective. Drawing upon Weber, he reasons that the
fundamental distinction is between economic

and social differences and involves a distinc-
tion peculiar to modern history between
experience in the workplace and experience

in the family. At one time, workplace and
family life were part of the same household
unit. Ambition for economic gain and status
were correlative. However, a separation of
workplace from family life and household
unit has evolved historically:
of families into various prestige strata
First, the household ceased to exist as a necessary

basis of rational business association. Henceforth,
entiated on the basis of the position of men in
house member. Consequently, business assets had

to be separated from the private property of the
partners. ... Above all, the commercial debts had
to be distinguished from the private debts of the
partners, and joint responsibility had to be limited
to the former. . . . What is crucial is the separation
(Warner and Lunt, 1941:81-126). While

granting the economic component connoted
by the class concept-that classes are differ-
the economy, or in Marxian terms, property

ownership determines the economic interests
'6Herman (1962) found in a sample of a middle-sized
satellite city near Philadelphia that, on the average,
respondents identified three classes, which was only
about half the number of classes formed by Kaufman's
and Lenski's expert raters.
"7This discussion draws upon Blau and Duncan
(1967:ch. 1) and the interested reader is referred to the

original source for a more elaborate statement.
the partner was not necessarily-or typically-a
of household and business for accounting and
legal purposes, and the development of a suitable

body of laws, such as the commercial register, elim-
ination of dependence of the association and the

firm upon the family, separate property of the
private firm or limited partnership, and appropriate laws of bankruptcy. (Weber, 1968:i, 379)
Thus, the distinction is visible in the fact that
places of work have become separated from

family households so generally that the
distinction between classes and status groups
has acquired institutional as well as analytical
importance. At issue in discussing the
relevance of class and status variables in
certification for entering an occupation which
generates a level of income commensurate
with a certain life style. The functional
ordering imposed upon the variables does not

mean that they are necessarily strongly inter-
family theory and research is the fundamental recognition that whereas classes arise
correlated statistically, however. On the

contrary, the causal chain is only a loosely
associated configuration. Hodge and Siegel
are rooted in family experience. Before the
census data for males, report that only 30 per
out of common economic interests, statuses

individual reaches maturity he participates in
the family's claim to social prestige, the
family's occupational subculture, and the

family's general educational level. These are
the bases of shared life style, values, and
attitudes which figure so prominently in
family theory and research.

Earlier family textbooks routinely included
in discussions of basic family functions the

fact that families confer status upon their
members. Although the role of the family
(1968), for example, analyzing the 1950
cent of the variation in years of school
completed and 18 per cent of the variation in
income can be accounted for by major
occupation groups, while but 11 per cent of

the variation in income can be accounted for
by educational attainment. Similarly, Duncan (Blau and Duncan, 1967:117-128) underscores what the status crystallization literature has amply documented, the fact that
status intercorrelations are far from unity.
Individual correlations between level of
may have undergone some change in this
education, income, and occupational prestige
may be less an indication of change in family

function than of family theory and research
indicating that no more than 40 per cent of

the variance in any one of these measures of
socioeconomic position is common with any
respect, the lack of recognition of the status

conferring function in current family texts
are commonly of a magnitude of .4 to .6,
attending less to stratification variables.
other measure.
prestige hierarchy, not individuals (Weber,
Given the demonstrably loose relationship

among status dimensions, some researchers
have experimented with assorted composite
Nonetheless, social strata are ranked into a

1946); and the prestige status of an individual
is directly determined by neither economic
affluence nor personal attributes, but by the

social stratum embracing his family. Families
confer prestige status upon their members.
Important as prestige ranking may be,
however, the economic rather than the

prestige criteria are undoubtedly most crucial
in the stratification system of the entire

society, particularly the modern industrial
society. How the economic dimension is most
adequately measured is discussed below.
What we have noted is the theoretical basis
for a multidimensional system of social
differentiation. If we will grant the theoretical
base, we can proceed to empirically examine

the relationship between status dimensions
and the consequences of constructing composite measures.
COMPOSITE MEASURES OF
SOCIAL STATUS
There is little question concerning the

functional relationship of such objective
status indicators as education, occupation,

income, and life style. Education provides
measures often requiring some kind of
weighted summation of education, income,

occupation, and other indicators. The
implicit assumption of such procedures is
that there is an underlying unidimensional
class or status variable, however labelled,
which can be miraculously captured if several
indicators, only moderately interrelated, can

statistically be combined into one. However,
if the several indicators represent an underlying unidimensional variable, they will be
highly intercorrelated and will manifest a
pattern of relationships that, in the sense of
factor analysis, can be accounted for by a
single factor. Factor analytic studies of the
interrelationships, however, tend to support
what is apparent by the moderate intercor-
relations, that not one but two or more

factors are required to account for the pattern
of intercorrelations (Kahl and Davis, 1955).

The general finding of internal structure
analysis (factor analysis) is supported by
cross-structure analysis: the components of

composite indicators measured on indi-
viduals-even such conceptually closely
identified objective indicators as education,

occupation, and income--do not necessarily
index the same thing. Hauser, Lutterman,
and Sewell (1971), for example, decomposed
their composite family socioeconomic status
indicator and demonstrated an as yet unexplained direct parental income effect on
son's earnings, a relationship that is not
present with parent's education and occupa-
tional prestige. However, in an earlier
analysis of the same data, Hauser (1970)

reports that the family socioeconomic status
variable is a unidimensional construct with
regard to adolescent achievement aspirations

and educational attainments, i.e., parental
level of education, income, and occupational
prestige affected the dependent variables in
much the same way. Similarly, Hodge (1970)
demonstrated that different social psychological indicators differentially respond to
different indicators of socioeconomic status.
The point is that researchers are " . . . illadvised to construct . . . composite socio-
economic variables without first determining
the pattern of relationships between each

component and the other variables of
interest" (Duncan, Featherman, and Duncan, 1972:42). Aggregating moderately cor-
related indicators invites conceptual ambiguity and invalidity and the very real
probability of concealing rather than revealing critical relationships. In summary, the

construction of composite indicators is warranted only if it has first been shown that the
composite is a unidimensional construct with
respect to the variables of interest. That is a
tenet to be empirically demonstrated, not an
assumption to be uncritically and implicitly
advanced. The widespread use of composites
in family research warrants censor and
caution: such ensembles tend to be atheoreti-
cal and ad hoc; they mask rather than expose

relationships; they promote conceptual invalidity; they contribute to a confusion of
findings rather than to a cumulative family
theory.
The moderate intercorrelations of social
operationally indefensible indicator of social

position. Family researchers are urged to
refine their theory by unambiguous specifica-
tion of the relationship between their

variables of interest and the specific status
dimension they propose to operationalize, be
it occupation, education, income, and the
like. One would not expect education,
income, and occupational prestige to necessarily affect a dependent variable of interest

in the same way. On the contrary, one might
well expect the status variables to differ-
entially relate to family variables simply
because the status indicators are but moder-
ately intercorrelated, hence index different

effects. Cumulative theory is built by hypothesizing the precise nature of the expected
effect, then verifying it empirically. If the

stratification variable is invalidly defined or
operationalized, the finding will also be
invalid and ambiguous. Multivariate models

employing various specific status indicators
are commended because they reveal the
precise locus of effects among status
components, net of all other effects.18 Herein

lies a possibility for refining understanding of
empirical relationships and for advancing
cumulative theory.
'sThe conceptual change from social class to status
dimensions did not occur independently of methodological innovations. The reconceptualization arose as part of
a growing dissatisfaction with the mobility table as a
mode of stratification analysis (Duncan, 1966).
Concurrently, there developed a growing interest in the

application of multiple regression analysis (Duncan and
Hodge, 1963) to sociological phenomena. Not to be
ignored is the fact that the computer revolution had

occurred and that more sophisticated and higher order
analytical strategies were feasible. Inasmuch as methods

of analysis are not functionally independent of research
oriented theory, one might expect a shift in methodology
to accompany reconceptualization. The analytical
methodology that accompanied the reconceptualization

is popularly referred to as path analysis.
Others have elaborated the methods for obtaining
estimates of path models (Duncan, 1966b; Land, 1969;
Heise, 1969; Duncan, Featherman, and Duncan, 1972),
and our purpose is not to provide a primer for the

uninitiated. Let the reader understand that adopting
status conceptualizations does not require adopting the
statuses ought not be considered an unfortunate nuisance by family researchers, for they
hold an important key to building an additive
techniques of path analysis. However, the goodness of fit
specific status dimensions and family variables of interest rather than concealing associations within a conceptually ambiguous and
general linear model, between multidimensional theory

and the multivariate capabilities of regression analysis,
have facilitated a quantum leap in stratification studies.
The possibilities for these theoretical breakthroughs in
family studies remain largely unexplored.
body of family theory. The key is in

demonstrating the relationships between
between conceptualizing statuses as continua and the
OCCUPATIONAL PRESTIGE
AS AN INDICATOR OF FAMILY
SOCIAL STATUS
Of the plurality of status indicators the

variable sociologists most commonly focus
upon is occupation and, more specifically,
position. Granted, Marx defined a man's

class not in terms of his occupation but by
whether he was an employer having the
capital to buy the labor of his compatriot or
an employee who sold his labor. But the
Marxian conception simply does not do
occupational prestige (Blau and Duncan,
justice to modern large-scale capitalistic
indicators, are income (Miller, 1966), general
but less frequently employed as status
individual proprietors but are themselves

employees of depersonalized legal entities
known as corporations within which labor
reputation and influence (Warner and Lunt,

1941; Lehman, 1969; Walton, 1971). To-
(Dahrendorf, 1959). Explicitly, if class refers

to an individual's managerial influence on
1967; Duncan, Featherman, and Duncan,

1972; Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi, 1966). Also,
wealth (Lampman, 1962), and community

gether with class, status, and political power,
education has been proposed as a fourth

basic dimension (Svalastoga, 1965); but
because education lacks the universality of

the first three hierarchies, its formal
importance as a status indicator is largely
limited to relatively modern societies (Haller,
1970). In developing societies education is
more accurately conceptualized as a deter-
minant of wealth, power, and prestige than as
an indicator of these (Rosen, Crockett, and
Nunn, 1969).
While occupational prestige certainly does

not exhaust the range of status indicators, we
propose that it is a summary measure of a

family's general social standing within the
context of modem societies.'" Claim is not
made that occupational position is identical
with either the Marxian concept of class or
Weber's prestige status, but it is argued that
occupational position is closely connected
with both, especially with economic class. For

the majority of men the primary determinant
of economic resources is their occupational

'"The problem of conceptualizing and operation-
alizing indicators of family social position when wife
works is acknowledged but not addressed by the present
paper. Haug (1972:446-447) reports that in a national
sample nearly 40 per cent of the wives for whom data
were available were above their husbands in level of
occupational prestige, using the Duncan SEI. The
finding reflects the fact that women gravitate to white

collar and professional jobs, which are ranked above the
skilled manual jobs their husbands are more likely to

occupy. Of course, the more fundamental question is.
how to assess family social position when the wife works.

While not having solved the problem, the Census demon-
strates a sensitivity to this contemporary structural
reality by assigning socioeconomic status on the basis of

a family's "chief" earner rather than on the basis of the
male earner. Developing more adequate indicators of
family social position warrants the systemmatic attention

and high research priority of family and stratification
scholars, alike.
enterprises wherein those who control are not
itself is subdivided into major groupings
economic concerns, then in modern in-
dustrialized societies class is more accurately

reflected by an individual's specific occupation than by his employment status.
Conceptually, the relationship between eco-
nomic class and occupational position,
though not perfect, is very close. Occupational position is also closely related to
prestige status inasmuch as maintenance of
appropriate higher strata life styles (con-
sumptive patterns) requires considerable
economic resources and "honorable" work,

i.e., nonphysical labor.20
We have argued the theoretical and
empirical grounds for adopting a multi-
dimensional conception of social stratification, for considering stratification variables

as continua rather than classes, and for
basing stratification dimensions on the
occupational structure. Occupational pres-
tige refers to the phenomenon of differential
societal evaluations of occupations according

to their social standings. Although systematic study of the differential ranking of occupations may be traced over fifty years to
Counts (1925), only during the last decade
have the cumulative studies yielded an under-
standing of the process whereby society
members reach a consensus concerning the

social ratings of occupational roles (Duncan,
20Family theorists will recognize that in addition to

serving as the foundation for the main dimensions of
social stratification, the occupational structure serves as

the connecting link between different institutions. For
example, the occupational structure serves as the link
between the economy and the family, through which the
family supplies manpower to the economy and the

economy endorses family social status (Parsons and
Smelser, 1956:51-55, 70-72). The multifaceted role of the

occupational structure in connecting different elements
of social organization makes understanding of it
imperative for those who would study the relationship of

the family and family variables to modern social systems.
1961a; Duncan and Hodge, 1963; Hodge et
al., 1964; Siegel, 1970). What is known about
occupational prestige can be briefly summarized (Featherman and Hauser, 1973:

241). First of all, rankings of occupational
titles are remarkably invariant. Differing
instructions to raters-e.g., to rank occupational titles according to social standing,
honor, or requisite intelligence-does not
introduce variance in the occupational
rankings (Hodge et al., 1966; Siegel, 1970).
Second, occupational prestige studies based
on cross-section samples of the general
population are devoid of significant variance
in rankings due to age, sex, region, residence,
education, and occupation of individual

raters (Reiss, 1961). Third, though some few
individual occupational titles have shifted
relative positions in the hierarchy of prestige
since 1925, the overall structure of occupational prestige has remained virtually constant over time. Prestige scores in surveys
separated by about forty years correlate at .93
(Duncan, 1968:704-709). Fourth, the prestige

structure is also stable over space. In both
Western and non-Western countries and in
developed and developing societies, the
prestige attributed to matching occupational

titles is largely invariant across cultures
(Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi, 1966; Pineo and
Porter, 1970). Duncan (1968:708) concludes:
"... these findings mean. .. that we are

not measuring occupational status with a
Given the actual complexity and multi-
dimensionality of the stratification structure,
the index of occupational socioeconomic
status is not a completely effective substitute
for individual measures of income or
education, and such other relevant socioeconomic variables should also be employed to
secure optimal prediction of the relative

standings of individuals in their local
communities or other group contexts.
MEASURING OCCUPATIONAL
PRESTIGE IN FAMILY RESEARCH
Assuming a family theorist-researcher
would choose to employ occupational prestige

as his basic indicator of socioeconomic status,
how might he best proceed? Fortunately,
family researchers are in the coveted position
of being able to capitalize on a considerable
amount of "spade-work" already accom-
plished by their stratification oriented

colleagues. In short, the family researcher's
first objective is to gather data in its most
refined and versatile form, assured that it
may always later be aggregated to suit
convenience and special interests. We would

suggest, therefore, that as standard operating
procedure the family researcher gather his

occupational data in a form readily classifiable into the conventions of the Alphabetical Index of Occupations and Industries
(U.S. Bureau of Census, 1960). Once the raw
data are collected in this form, they can
rubber yardstick." Finally, approximately

83 per cent of the variance in occupational
readily be assigned explicit SEI and prestige

scale scores, or efficiently transformed into
tion of educational and income characteristics of detailed occupational titles (Duncan,
codings either manually or by computer.

In order to classify data according to the
Alphabetical Index and to obtain the status
scores for detailed occupational titles, only
prestige is accounted for by a linear combina-
1961a:124). This means that the status asso-
ciated with an occupational title is in large

part a function of certification through formal
education and the market value or income of
the incumbent's specific occupation.
Using occupational prestige as the basic
indicator of social position does not preclude
incorporating indicators of other status
dimensions into explanatory models. In fact,

it invites them. The multidimensional
conception of social stratification is based on

the premise that any particular variable or
index at best reflects selected aspects of the
structure that may be strategic in specific
investigations, and that there may be no such
thing as a single index of socioeconomic
status suitable for all research purposes.
numerous special purpose occupational
three pieces of information are required:

occupation, industry, and class of worker.
While most surveys collect similar detail
about employment, few investigators specify
procedures for the classification and storage

of data which parallels those developed by
stratification researchers, are employed by
the U.S. Bureau of Census, and provide raw
data in its most useable form. Some
unfortunate classification decisions may be

made without knowledge of the reasons and
the procedures and the potential of the census
classifications, which are specified in the
introductory pages of the Alphabetical Index.
And because the data are not gathered and
stored most inventively, their full potential

cannot be exploited later.
The recommended procedures for gathering information on occupation, industry, and
class of worker are straightforward and

simple. The Census asks the- following
question for occupation: "What kind of work
were you doing?" Researchers sometimes
prompt respondents with such examples as

electrical engineer, stock clerk, farmer. The
Census asks the following item for industry:
"What kind of business or industry was

this?" Researchers sometimes prompt re-
spondents with such examples as TV and
radio manufacturing, retail shoe store, State

Labor Department, farm. In order to assign
status scores to all occupations, the only
distinction needed concerning class of worker
is between salaried and self-employed, and

many researchers simply use the straight-
forward question: "Were you salaried or
self-employed?" The census manual makes

procedures explicit that are often treated on
an ad hoc basis. Using the procedures assures
the family researcher of data gathered in its
most broadly applicable form and provides
that family theoreticians and researchers will

also enjoy the benefit of comparability of data
across research operationalizations. 21
The analyst is at least equally concerned
with the reliability of his data, especially if he
is interested in correcting his socioeconomic

variables for attenuations in variance. Siegel
and Hodge (1968), in a seminal contribution
to the study of reliability, matched respondent's reports of schooling completed, personal income, and occupational status (coded
into Duncan SEI equivalents to census major
occupation group titles) to the 1960 decennial
Census of Population with subsequent reports
Hauser (1973:247) summarize various studies

having further bearing on the question of the
reliability of occupational information.22 In

general, there is evidence for the stability of
occupational statuses over the last half

century; there is no evidence of methodological artifacts in popular evaluations of
occupational prestige which would jeopardize
the development of standardized instruments; and survey reports of occupation

prove to be of comparable reliability to
reports of income and education, are retro-
spectively stable, and are of known validity as

proxy reports.
In summary, procedures for obtaining
occupational information have been carefully

devised and recorded in the Alphabetical
Index of Occupations and Industries (U.S.
Bureau of Census, 1960). Using the proce-
dures is efficient and produces data of known
and high reliability. The procedures create

occupational data in the most versatile and
refined form which is readily transformed
into special purpose codings. The procedures
presuppose that occupational statuses exist
along a continuum and may be comple-
mented with indicators of such alternative
statuses as education and income. Adoption

of the procedures by family theorists and
researchers will facilitate standardized con-
ceptualizations of stratification variables

across disciplines and will assist the integration of stratification related findings within
family studies.
22There is evidence that retrospective reports of
occupations held five years in the past are also reliable

(stable). A product moment correlation of .0802 is cited
for men aged nineteen and over who report their

occupations in two surveys over a five-year interval
(Walsh and Buckholdt, 1970), indicating that the
from the same persons on the same items in

either the Post Enumeration Survey or the
Current Population Survey. Inspecting their
long-term decay in memory and reporting of occupation

is not appreciably greater than the short-term. There are
finds a test-retest reliability coefficient of .87
Hauser, 1970). The correlation between men's reports of

paternal nonfarm occupations when respondents were
about 16 years old and father's own reports to the Census
Bureau is .74 (Blau and Duncan, 1967:462). Jencks
(1972:334) reports a father-son correlation for father's
occupation of .769. Although there is little accuracy in
results (Siegel and Hodge, 1968:37), one
for occupation and .93 and .85 for education

-and income, respectively. Featherman and
21Featherman and Hauser (1973:244) report that
clerks following the procedures outlined can process
occupational information with high reliability after a
modest training period. They indicate that an average
coder can process about twenty occupations per hour,
assigning three-digit codes for each of industry and
occupation, a one-digit class of worker code, and the
prestige and SEI status scores.
several indications of the quality of proxy reports on

occupation. The validity coefficient for adult sons's
report of father's occupation is .718 (Treiman and
the reports of young school children, by the time students
leave high school they are as reliable in reporting
paternal occupation as is the father himself (Mason in

Kerckhoff et al., 1973). In general, then, proxy reports
of parental statuses are quite reliable. However, there are
also tentative indications that retrospective reports by
proxy decay with time somewhat more substantially than

do respondent's own retrospective reports.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In its simplest statement this paper argues
that one of the routes to a cumulative family

theory and research involving social stratifi-
cation variables is the adoption of conceptualizations and operationalizations that presuppose the reality of a multidimensional
status system. We have noted that although
during the last decade sociological research in
general and stratification studies in particular have increasingly measured family social
position with indicators of status and occu-
Specialization is applauded to the extent that

it facilitates knowledge of social phenomena.
Specialization is lamented to the extent that it
interferes with the ready diffusion and

adoption of the best currently available
research technology. It is proposed that the
theoretical refinements and multivariate
analytical methodologies that have developed

in stratification studies over the past decade
have wide applicability in family studies,
particularly in theory and research involving
family socioeconomic status.
pational prestige, family researchers continue
a strong commitment to the concept social

class and operationalize the concept in widely
divergent ways. We have reviewed the
limitations of the social class concept and
have illustrated inconsistent research findings
resulting as artifacts of invalid conceptualizations and inconsistent operationalizations.

As an application of Aldous' borrowed theory
approach to building a cumulative body of
family theory and research, we have urged
family theorists to adopt multidimensional
REFERENCES
Aldous, Joan
1970 "Strategies for developing family theory."

Journal of Marriage and the Family 32
(May):250-257.
Barber, Bernard
1957 Social Stratification. New York:Harcourt,
Brace and World.
Bendix, Reinhard
status indicators conceived as stratification
1974 "Inequality and social structure: a comparison

of Marx and Weber." American Sociological
Review 39 (April):149-161.
Bendix, Reinhardt and Seymour Martin Lipset
continua. Following the approach to social

stratification pioneered by Sewell, Duncan
Blalock, Hubert M.
and their colleagues, we have advocated

considering occupational position as the
basis for other forms of social inequality and
the use of occupational prestige as the best
summary indicator of family social position in

modern industrialized societies. We have
cited evidence indicating that the components
of composite socioeconomic indicators may

differentially affect dependent variables of
interest, have cautioned against constructing
composite indicators, and have encouraged
analytical strategies that reveal the independent effects of specific status indicators. We
have suggested that family researchers adopt
1966 Class, Status, and Power. 2nd Ed. New York:

The Free Press.
1960 Social Statistics. New York:McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
1969 "Multiple indicators and the causal approach

to measurement error." American Journal of
Sociology 75 (September):264-272.
Blau, P. M. and 0. D. Duncan
1967 The American Occupational Structure. New
York:John Wiley.
Blishen, Bernard R.
1958 "The construction and use of an occupational

class scale." Canadian Journal of Economic
and Political Science 24 (November):519-531.
Bogue, Donald J.
1963 Skid Row in American Cities. University of
Chicago, Community and Family Study
Center.
more widely used and standarized procedures for coding occupations-specifically,
Bott, Elizabeth
pages of the Alphabetical Index of Occupa-
man, Issues in Social Inequality. Boston:Little,

Brown and Company.
Brody, Grace F.
the conventions explained in the introductory
tions and Industries-which have been used

widely and effectively in nonfamily research.
The specific information required for such

coding procedures was specified. We submit
that following the proposed conventions will
assist the ordering and integration of family
studies that control on socioeconomic status.
In recent years family and stratification

studies have become increasingly specialized.
1970 "Classes are what you say they are." Pp.
47-68 in Gerald W. Thielbar and Saul D. Feld-
1968 "Socioeconomic differences in stated maternal
child-rearing practices and in observed mater-
nal behavior." Journal of Marriage and the

Family 30 (November):656-665.
Burr, Wesley R.
1970 "Satisfaction with various aspects of marriage
over the life cycle: a random middle class
sample." Journal of Marriage and the Family
32 (February):29-37.
Centers, Richard
1949 The Psychology of Social Classes: A Study of

Class Consciousness. New York:Russell.
Chapin, Francis S.
1935 Contemporary American Institutions: A Sociological Analysis. New York:Harper.
Duncan, Otis D., and R. W. Hodge

1963 "Education and occupational mobility." American Journal of Sociology 68 (May):629-644.
Edwards, Alba M.
1933 "A social-economic grouping of the gainful
workers of the United States." Journal of the

American Statistical Association 28:377-387.
Charles, Enid
1948 The Changing Size of the Family in Canada.
Canada, Bureau of Statistics, Census Mono-
graph No. 1. Ottawa:Cloutier.
Counts, G. S.
1925 "The social status of occupations: a problem

in vocational guidance." Social Reveiw 33
(January): 16-27.
Cox, Oliver C.
1948 Caste, Class, and Race. Garden City, New

York:Doubleday.
Cuber, John F. and William F. Kenkel
1954 Social Stratification in the United States. New
York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Cutright, Philips
1970 "Income and family events: getting married."

(November):628-637.
1971a "Income and family events: family income,

family size, and consumption." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 33 (February):
161-173.
1971b "Income and family events: marital stability."

Journal of Marriage and the Family 33 (May):
291-306.
Faris, Robert E. L.
1960 "The middle class from a sociological viewpoint." Social Forces 39 (October):1-5.
Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser
1973 "On the measurement of occupation in social

surveys." Sociological Methods and research 2
(November):239-251.
Geismar, Ludwig L. and Ursula C. Gerhart

1968 "Social class, ethnicity, and family function-
ing: exploring some issues raised by the
Moynihan Report." Journal of Marriage and

the Family 30 (August):480-487.
Groat, H. Theodore and Arthur G. Neal
1973 "Social class and alienation correlates of
Protestant fertility." Journal of Marriage and

the Family 35 (February):83-88.
Gross, Llewellyn
1949 "The use of class concepts in sociological

research." American Journal of Sociology 54
(March) :409-421.
Haller, Archibald O.
1970 "Changes in the structure of status systems."

Rural Sociology 35 (December):469-487.
Hatt, Paul K.
Dahrendorf, Ralf
1959 Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society.

Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Davis, James A.
1956 "Status symbols and the measurement of status
1950 "Occupation and social stratification." American Journal of Sociology 55 (May):533-543.

Haug, Marie
1972 "Social class measurement: a methodological
critique." In Gerald W. Thielbar and Saul

D. Feldman (eds.), Issues in Social Inequality.
Boston:Little, Brown and Company.
perception." Sociometry 19 (September):

154-165.
Duncan, Otis Dudley

1961a "A socioeconomic index for all occupations."
Pp. 109-138 in Albert J. Reiss, Jr., et al.,
Occupations and Social Status. New York:Free
Press.
Hauser, Robert M.
1969 "Schools and the stratification process."

American Journal of Sociology 74 (May):
587-611.
1970 "Educational stratification in the United
1961b "Properties and characteristics of the socio-
economic index." Pp. 139-161 in Albert J.

Reiss, Jr., et al., Occupations and Social
Status. New York:Free Press.
1966 "Path analysis: sociological examples." American Journal of Sociology 72 (July):1-16.
1968 "Social stratification and mobility: problems in
the measurement of trend." Pp. 675-719 in

E. B. Sheldon and W. Moore (eds.), Indicators
of Social Change. New York:Russell Sage.

Duncan, Otis Dudley and Jay W. Artis
1951 Social Stratification in a Pennsylvania Rural
Community. Pennsylvania State College,
School of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 543. University Park, Pennsylvania:The College.
Duncan, Otis D., David L. Featherman, and Beverly
Duncan
1972 Socioeconomic Background and Achievement.

New York:Seminar.
States." Sociological Inquiry 40 (Spring):
102-129.
Hauser, Robert M., Kenneth G. Lutterman and William

H. Sewell
1971 "Socioeconomic background and the earnings

of high school graduates." Paper presented at
the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Denver, Colorado.
Hear, John L.
1957 "Predictive utility of five indices of social

stratification." American Sociological Review
22 (October):541-545.
Heise, David R.
1969 "Problems in path analysis and causal inference." Pp. 38-73 in Edgar F. Borgotta (ed.),
Sociological Methodology. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Herman, Mary W.
1962 "Class concepts, aspirations and vertical
mobility." Pp. 115-152 in G. L. Palmer et al.,
(eds.), The Reluctant Job Changer: Studies in
Work Attachments and Aspirations. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hetzler, Stanley A.
1953 "An investigation of the distinctiveness of

social classes." American Sociological Review
Kornhauser, Arthur W.
1939 "Analysis of 'class' structure of contemporary

American society-psychological bases of class
divisions." In G. W. Hartmann and T. New-
comb (eds.), Industrial Conflict. New York:
18 (October):493-497.
Hodge, R. W.
1970 "Social integration, psychological well-being
and their socioeconomic correlates." Pp.
182-206 in E. O. Laumann (ed.), Social Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970's.
New York:Bobbs-Merrill.
Hodge, Robert W. and Paul M. Siegel

1966 The Classification of Occupations: Some
Problems of Sociological Interpretation. American Statistical Association, Social Statistics
Section, Proceedings (1965):176-192.
1968 "The measurement of social class." Pp. 316-
325 in David L. Sills (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New
York:The Macmillan Company.

Hodge, R. W., P. M. Siegel, and P. H. Rossi
1966 "Occupational prestige in the United States:
1925-1963." Pp. 332-334 in R. Bendix and S.
M. Lipset (eds.), Class, Status, and Power.
New York:Free Press.
Hodge, R. W., D. J. Treiman, and P. H. Rossi

1966 "A comparative study of occupational prestige." Pp. 309-321 in R. Bendix and S. M.
Lipset (eds.), Class, Status, and Power. New
York:Free Press.
Hollingshead, August B. and Frederick Redlich

1958 Social-Class and Mental Illness: A Community
Study. New York:Wiley.
Cordon.
Lambrechts, E.
1971 "Religiousness, social status and fertility

values in a Catholic country." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 33 (August):561-566.

Lampman, Robert J.
1962 The Share of the Top Wealth-holders in

National Wealth. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.

Landecker, Werner S.
1960 "Class boundaries." American Sociological Re-
view 25 (December):868-877.
Land, Kenneth C.
1968 "Principles of path analysis." Pp. 3-37 in

Edgar F. Borgatta (ed.), Sociological Methodology: 1969. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Landecker, Werner S.
1970 "Status congruence, class crystallization, and

social cleavage." Sociology and Social Research
54 (April):343-355.
Lasswell, Thomas E.
1969 "Social stratification: 1964-1968." Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social

Science 384 (July):104-134.
Lehman, Edward W.
1969 "Toward a macrosociology of power." American Sociological Review 34 (August):453-465.
Lenski, Gerhard E.
1952 "American social classes: statistical strata or
social groups?" American Journal of Sociology

58 (September): 139-144.
Jencks, D.
1972 Inequality. New York:Basic Books.
Johnson, Ralph E.
1970 "Some correlates of extramarital coitus."
1966 Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social

Stratification. New York:McGraw Hill.
Maranell, Gary M., Richard A. Dodder, and David F.
(August):449-456.
Kahl, Joseph A. and James A. Davis
Mitchell
(June):317-325.
Kaiser, B. and G. F. Summers
Miller, Herman P.
1966 Income Distribution in the United States.
1955 "A comparison of indexes of socioeconomic

status." American Sociological Review 20
1973 "The adequacy of student reports of parental
SES characteristics." Social Methods and Re-
search 1 (February):303-315.
Kaufman, Harold F.
1944 Prestige Classes in a New York Rural Community. Cornell University, Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, Memoir No. 260. Ithaca,
New York:The University.
1946 Defining Prestige in a Rural Community.

Sociometry Monographs, No. 10. New York:
Beacon.
Kerckhoff, Alan C.
1972 "Status related value patterns among married

couples." Journal of Marriage and the Family
34 (February):105-110.
Kerckhoff, A. C., W. M. Mason and S. S. Poss
1973 "On the accuracy of children's reports of family
social status measures." Sociology of Education 46 (Spring):219-247.
1970 "Social class and premarital sexual permissiveness: a subsequent test." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 32 (February):85-88.
A 1960 Census Monograph. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.

Myrdal, Gunnar
1944 An American Dilemma. New York:Harper.

National Opinion Research Center (NORC)
1947 "Jobs and occupations: a popular evaluation."
Prepared by Cecil North and Paul K. Hatt.
Opinion News 9 (September):3-13.
Nisbet, Robert A.
1970 "The decline and fall of social class." Pp.
570-574 in Edward O. Laumann, Paul M.
Siegel, and Robert W. Hodge, The Logic of

Social Hierarchies. Chicago:Markham Pub-
lishing Company.
Parsons, Talcott
1957 "The distribution of power in American
Society." World Politics 10:123-143.

1963 "On the concept of political power." Pp. 240265 in Reinhardt Bendix and Seymour M.
Lipset (eds.), Class, Status, and Power: Social

Stratification in Comparative Perspective. New
York:The Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott and Neil J. Smelser
1956 Economy and Society. Glencoe:The Free Press.
Pfautz, Harold W.
1953 "The current literature on social stratification:
critique and bibliography." American Journal

of Sociology 58 (January):391-418.
Pineo, Peter C. and John Porter
1970 "Occupational prestige in Canada." Pp. 174188 in E. O. Laumann, Paul M. Siegel, and
Robert W. Hodge, The Logic of Social
Hierarchies. Chicago:Markham Publishing
Company.
Reiss, Albert J.
1961 Occupations and Social Status. New York:The

Free Press.
Renne, Karen S.
1970 "Correlates of dissatisfaction in marriage."

Journal of Marriage and the Family 32 (Feb-
ruary):54-67.
Robinson, J. P., R. Athanasious, and K. B. Head
1969 Measures of Occupational Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics. Ann Arbor:Institute

for Social Research.
Rodman, Hyman, H. R. Nichols, and Patricia Voy-
danoff
1969 "Lower-class attitudes toward 'deviant' family

patterns: a crosscultural study." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 31 (May):315-321.
Rosen, Bernard C., Harry J. Crockett, Jr., and Clyde Z.
Nunn
1969 Achievement in American Society. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Schenkman.
Runciman, W. G.
1968 "Class, status, and power?" Pp. 25-61 in J. A.
Jackson (ed.), Social Stratification. London:

Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A.
1955 Imperialism and Social Classes. New York:

Meridian Books.
Sewell, William H.
1940 The Construction and Standardization of a
Scale for the Measurement of Oklahoma Farm
Families: Socioeconomic Status. Agricultural

Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin No. 9.
Stillwater:Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Sewell, William H., Archibald O. Haller, and George
Ohlendorf
1970 "The educational and early occupational at-
tainment process: replications and revisions."

American Sociological Review 35 (December):
1014-1027.
Sewell, William H., and Robert M. Hauser
1972 "Causes and consequences of higher education:
models of the status attainment process."
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
54 (December):851-861.
Siegel, P. M.
1970 "The American occupational prestige struc-
ture." Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Chicago.
Siegel, Paul M. and R. W. Hodge

1968 "A causal approach to measurement error."
Pp. 28-59 in H. M. Blalock and A. B. Blalock (eds.), Methodology in Social Research.
New York:McGraw-Hill.
Straus, Murray A.
1971 "Some social antecedents of physical punishment: a linkage theory interpretation." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 34 (November):
658-663.
Svalastoga, Kaare
1965 Social Differentiation. New York:David Mc-
Kay.
Tallman, Irving
1969 "Working class wives in suburbia: fulfillment
or crisis?" Journal of Marriage and the Family
31 (February):65-72.
Thielbar, Gerald W. and Saul D. Feldman
1972 Issues in Social Inequality. Boston:Little

Brown and Company.
Trieman, D. J. and R. M. Hauser
1970 On the Intergenerational Transmission of
Income: An Exercise in Theory Construction.
New York:Columbia University. (Unpub-
lished.)
U.S. Bureau of Census
1960 Alphabetical Index of Occupations and Industries. Washington, D.C.:Superintendent of

Documents.
Walsh, T. C. and P. J. Buckholdt
1970 "Accuracy of retrospectively reporting work

status and occupation five years ago." U.S.
Bureau of Census working paper PA-(75).
Walton, John
1971 "A methodology for the comparative study of

power: some conceptual and procedural applications." Social Science Quarterly 52 (June):
39-60.
Warner, W. Lloyd
1949 Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status.
New York:Harper.
Warner, W. Lloyd and Paul S. Lunt
1941 The Social Life of a Modern Community.
New York:Yale.
Warner, W., M. Meeker and K. Eels
1949 Social Class in America. Chicago:Science Research Associates.
Weber, Max
1946 From Max Weber. Trans. and ed. by Hans

H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York:
Oxford University Press.
1968 Economy and Society. Trans. and ed. by

Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. New York:
Bedminister Press.
Wrong, Dennis H.
1969 "Social inequality without social stratification." Pp. 513-520 in Celia S. Heller, Structured Social Inequality. London:The Macmillan Company.

Class and Status in Family Research

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Class and Status in Family Research

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Class and Status in Family Research

Author(s): Luther B. Otto

Class and Status in Family Research*

Washington State University

ceptualizations and operationalizations that have developed in the occupational

In outlining strategies for developing cumula-

where most research excitement is being

tive family theory, Aldous (1970) considers

generated and to explore those areas for their

literally, the strategy advocated is neither a

borrowed theory strategy. Its purpose is to

the potential of the "borrowed theory"

schemes nor their uncritical application to

"they just might work." Rather, the

borrowed theory is a calculated approach, a

research specialization is the problem of

researcher isolation, a vexation of neither

greater nor lesser severity among family

specialists. Researcher isolation is a problem

to whatever extent it minimizes the cross-

fertilization of interdependent substantive

theory both depends upon and contributes to

supported by The Grant Foundation, Inc., which the

paper was presented at the annual meetings of the

draft of this manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.

**Department of Sociology and Social Research

Center, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99163.

This paper is an application of the

ture based on the theoretical reorientation

suggested by the generally demographic

approach to stratification' and to introduce

family studies. That family processes are

closely associated with family position in the

the true unit of class and class theory."

Father's and mother's levels of education,

family socioeconomic status, parental influ-

ence and encouragement, race, size of

concept embracing such more specialized areas of study

May 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 315

examples of family variables that have been

attainment process (Sewell, Haller, and

Ohlendorf, 1970; Duncan, Featherman, and

ments is an example of an area of inter-

penetration shared by the subdisciplines that

always reflect an understanding of the

theoretical developments that have generated

(1974:153), discussing class and status, has

groups are rooted in family experience.'" This

paper will explore that anomaly in greater

detail, elaborating the theoretical and

variety of class and status indicators in family

wide diversity of practice among family

position, this paper will summarize relevant

conceptualizations and findings from stratifi-

cation studies, past and present, and will

promise of applying multidimensional status

conceptualizations in family theory and

In reviewing journal articles using social

the American Sociological Review (ASR)

reports that the Hollingshead Index of Social

class, was employed eleven times and the

indicator of occupational status, appeared

a gradual decline, whereas the Duncan SEI is

judgment was accurate but premature is