Predictive Utility of Five Indices of Social Stratification

Social structural and methodological obstacles in class awareness and class identification research

“…Many sociologists such as Hodges (1964), Case (1955), Gross (1953), Williams (1958), Ogburn and Nimkoff (1958), Merrill (1957), Mayer (1964), Barber (1957), Haer (1957b), Kahl and Davis (1955), Cuber and Kenkel (1954), Hodge and Trieman (1968), Ma nis and Meitzer (1954 and 1963) a Includes persons who identify themselves with categories which are irrelevant to any kind of conventional social-political-economic concept of class-e.g., they assert membership in the «friendly», «worldly», «white», or «religious» class, b Includes persons who are unable to name a class, refuse to answer, don't know, or do not believe in classes, c No population estimate was found for this study. (1963), Kahl (1957), and Svalastoga (1956), argue that the working and middle class identifications people make in research investigations, plus also the extent to which they possess knowledge of the class structure, are not a real expression of their ideology, rather represent, in part, an artifact of the specific questions asked and criteria employed.…”

“…Data of (Gross, 1953 andKahl andDavis, 1955), middle class to mid dle class (Haer, 1957aand 1957band Hodge and Treiman, 1968, and working class to working class (Ro goff, 1953c).…”

“…The two most prevalent orientations depicting class identification are those relating to middle class (Table 3) and working class (Table 4) images. One type of finding has the largest proportion of persons placing themselves in the «middle class» (Gallup and Rae, 1940;Fortune, 1940;Haer, 1957a and1957b;Hodge and Treiman, 1968;Tucker, 1968;Cantril, 1943;Buchanan and Cantril, 1953;andTucker, 1966a and1966b). Another type of research finding has established a rather strong working class identi fication, and thus has challenged the finding that the majority of persons consider themselves to be middle class (Centers, 1949b;Case, 1952;Hamilton, 1966a and1966b;Rogoff, 1953c;Cole, 1955;Manis and Meitzer, 1954;and Buchanan and Cantril, 1953).…”

“…Kahl and Davis (1955), in their sample investiga tion of 219 urban males approached the problem of self-identification by following a procedure first used by Gross (1953). Open-ended questions about class membership were used in conjunction with a modified version of a forced-type question similar to that uti lized by Centers (1949b) (See Tables 7 and 8 Minneapolis, Minnesota (U.S.) Gross (1953) United States Fortune (1940) Tallahassee, Florida (U.S.) Haer (1957aHaer ( ) (1957b Open End Forced Choice Forced Choice Open End Forced Choice Open End Forced Choice and lower-middle a Includes persons who identify themselves with categories which are irrelevant to any kind of conventional social-political-economic concept of class-e.g., they assert membership in the «friendly», «worldly», «white», or «religious» class, b Includes persons who are unable to name a class, refuse to answer, don't know, or do not believe in classes, c Author uses class categories of «Bourgeois», «Middle», «Working», and «Peasant», instead of the conventional Upper, Middle, Working and Lower. <1 A forced choice question containing 9 class choices, three each for upper class,middle class, and working class wasoriginallyadministered.…”

“…The openended questions were successful also in producing a sharp increase in the percentage of subjects who de clined to identify themselves with any social class (from 2.5 to 35.9 per cent). Using data from both a structured and open-ended question, Haer (1957a and1957b) found that signifi cant differences of response existed with regard to class self-placement. Thirty-five per cent and 6 per cent of his respondents were unable to place themselves in a class in respectively the open-ended and forced-choice questions.…”