Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Married Persons’ Subjective Class Identification: The Role of Individual Gender Ideologies from 1972 to 2002

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined married men and women’s subjective class identification between 1972 and 2002, and the role of individual gender ideologies in married persons’ shifting status-evaluation models. We used nationally representative trend data gathered as part of the General Social Survey. Consistent with previous theoretical predictions, results indicated that overall, husbands and wives used status-sharing models of status-evaluation. Interestingly, however, in the late 1990s and early 2000s women shifted toward a status-borrowing model of status-evaluation. Results suggested that gender ideologies did not explain recent trends in the importance of wives’ and husbands’ class attributes for models of status-evaluation. We concluded that shifts in hegemonic gender beliefs, rather than individual gender ideologies, are a more likely explanation of changes in couples’ models of status-evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Given that our analysis is pattern-centered rather than variable-centered we will not focus on specific proportional odds ratios. But for the interested reader, the proportional odds ratios from the ordinal logistic regression model can be interpreted similar to those from binary logistic regression with the exception that the odds of one category are compared to the odds of the other categories cumulated. For example, for a one unit increase in husbands’ educational level, the odds of upper class identification versus the combined lower, working, and middle class identifications are 1.68 greater, holding other variables in the model constant. Because they are proportional odds ratios this also means that the odds of the combined working, middle, and upper class identification categories versus the lower class identification category are also 1.68 times greater.

  2. We also explored whether the rebound in gender ideologies and equitable status-sharing models in the late 1990s might be due to an outlier year within the 1996–2002 grouping by conducting sensitivity analyses examining these patterns for each year. All models provided evidence consistent with findings reported in the text, such that gender ideologies became consistently less egalitarian over time, and status-sharing models became less equitable over time.

References

  1. Acker, J. (1973). Women and social stratification: A case of intellectual sexism. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 936–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beeghley, L., & Cochran, J. (1988). Class identification and gender role norms among employed married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children: Dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography, 37, 401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cherlin, A., & Walters, P. B. (1981). Trends in United States men’s and women’s sex-role attitudes 1972–1978. American Sociological Review, 46, 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Crompton, R. (1989). Class theory and gender. The British Journal of Sociology, 40, 565–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1988). Class identification of men and women in the 1970s and 1980s. American Sociological Review, 53, 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1998). Do wives matter? Class identification of wives and husbands in the United States, 1974–1994. Social Forces, 76, 1063–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2003). General Social Surveys, 1972–2002: [Cumulative file] [Computer file]. 2nd ICPSR version. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center [producer]. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors].

  9. Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Felson, M., & Knoke, D. (1974). Social status and the married woman. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 516–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fullerton, H. N., Jr., & Toossi, M. (2001). Labor force projections to 2010: Steady growth and changing composition. Monthly Labor Review, 124, 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldthorpe, J. H. (1983). Women and class analysis: In defense of the conventional view. Sociology, 17, 465–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldthorpe, J. H., & Payne, C. (1986). On the class mobility of women: Results from different approaches to the analysis of recent British data. Sociology, 25, 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hiller, D., & Philliber, W. (1978). The derivation of status benefits from occupational attainments of working wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hiller, D., & Philliber, W. (1986). Determinants of social class identification for dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 583–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jackman, M. R. (1979). The subjective meaning of social class identification in the United States. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 443–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review, 38, 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1983). Class awareness in the United States. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kluegel, J. R., Singleton, R., Jr., & Starnes, C. E. (1977). Subjective class identification: A multiple indicator approach. American Sociological Review, 42, 599–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kroska, A. (2002). Does gender ideology matter? Examining the relationship between gender ideology and self- and partner-meanings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 248–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Simpson, I. H., Stark, D., & Jackson, R. A. (1988). Class identification processes of married, working men and women. American Sociological Review, 53(2), 284–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N. E., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Subjective social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1321–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Steiner, I. D. (1953). Some social values associated with objectively and subjectively defined social class memberships. Social Forces, 31, 327–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Thorton, A., Alwin, D. F., & Camburn, D. (1983). Causes and consequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude change. American Sociological Review, 48, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Walsh, K. C., Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). The effects of social class identification on participatory orientations towards government. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 469–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Weinberg, A., & Lyons, F. (1972). Class theory and practice. The British Journal of Sociology, 23, 51–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilkie, J. R. (1993). Changes in U.S. men’s attitudes toward the family provider role, 1972–1989. Gender and Society, 7(2), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wright, E. O. (1989). Women in the class structure. Politics and Society, 17, 35–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zipp, J. F., & Plutzer, E. (1996). Wives and husbands: Social class, gender, and class identification. Sociology, 30, 235–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Drs. Karen Campbell, Holly McCammon, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts, and Deanne Casanova for her administrative support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, VU Station B Box 351811, Nashville, TN, 37235-1811, USA

    Harmony D. Newman & Emily E. Tanner-Smith

Authors
  1. Harmony D. Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily E. Tanner-Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harmony D. Newman.

Appendix

Appendix

Gender ideology variable definitions and descriptive statistics

Variable definition

%

SDa

Range

It is more important for a wife to help her husband’s career than to have one herself (1 = disagree)

68.41

.46

0–1

A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works (1 = disagree)

48.55

.50

0–1

It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family (1 = disagree)

55.57

.50

0–1

If your party nominated a woman for President, would you vote for her if she were qualified for the job? (1 = yes)

85.59

.35

0–1

Most men are better suited emotionally for politics than are most women (1 = disagree)

65.82

.47

0–1

Do you approve or disapprove of a married woman earning money in business or industry if she has a husband capable of supporting her? (1 = approve)

77.09

.42

0–1

High gender egalitarianism (1 = yes)

34.52

.48

0–1

  1. Note: a SD—standard deviation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Newman, H.D., Tanner-Smith, E.E. Married Persons’ Subjective Class Identification: The Role of Individual Gender Ideologies from 1972 to 2002. Gend. Issues 25, 114–140 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-008-9052-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-008-9052-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation