An Odd Ladder to Climb: Socioeconomic Differences Across Levels of Subjective Social Status

Article

Abstract

Subjective social status (SSS), a promising measure of social class or standing, is linked robustly to diverse indicators of mental and physical well-being. However, the processes behind SSS remain poorly understood. Socioeconomic status (SES; e.g., education, income, or occupation) is among the strongest predictors of SSS, but when and how much does SES matter for understanding differences between given SSS ranks? Drawing on multiple years of national US data (2010–2014 General Social Survey), I show that a quartic form closely describes relationships between SSS and SES: namely, education, income and occupational attainment increase at the bottom of the SSS ladder (between rungs 1–2 and 3) and before the top (between rungs 5–8), increase more modestly (“plateau”) across other ranks, and decrease markedly at the very top (across rungs 9–10). Auxiliary data on wealth accumulation among older Americans (2005 National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States; MIDUS) replicate the quartic form for education and occupation while also suggesting that high personal net worth (e.g., millionaire status) may help to explain why individuals assign themselves to the very top of the ladder despite holding less education, income or occupational prestige relative to others who rank just below. Additional multinomial analyses showed how probabilities of occupying specific rungs of the SSS ladder shift across levels of SES, confirming that the very top of the ladder is more responsive to gains in personal net worth than to traditional SES measures.

Keywords

Subjective social status (SSS) Socioeconomic status (SES) Education Income Occupation Wealth 

References

  1. Adler, N., Singh-Manoux, A., Schwartz, J., Stewart, J., Matthews, K., & Marmot, M. G. (2008). Social status and health: A comparison of British civil servants in whitehall-II with European- and African-Americans in CARDIA. Social Science and Medicine, 66, 1034–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. A. (2015). How do we assign ourselves social status? A cross-cultural test of the cognitive averaging principle. Social Science Research, 52, 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloome, D. (2015). Income inequality and intergenerational income mobility in the United States. Social Forces, 93, 1047–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Demakakos, P., Nazroo, J., Breeze, E., & Marmot, M. (2008). Socioeconomic status and health: The role of subjective status. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Everett, B. G., Rehkopf, D. H., & Rogers, R. G. (2013). The nonlinear relationship between education and mortality: An examination of cohort, race/ethnic, and gender differences. Population Research and Policy Review, 32, 893–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franzini, L., & Fernandez-Esquer, M. E. (2006). The association of subjective social status and health in low-income mexican-origin individuals in Texas. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 788–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghaed, S. G., & Gallo, L. C. (2007). Subjective social status, objective socioeconomic status, and cardiovascular risk in women. Health Psychology, 26, 668–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman, N., Cornman, J. C., & Chang, M.-C. (2006). Measuring subjective social status: A case study of older Taiwanese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 21, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gould, R. V. (2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1143–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hecht, K. (2016). Relative (dis)Advantage. Perspectives from the Right Tail. Conference paper, “Moral economies, economic moralities” (Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, SASE). Delivered at University of California—Berkeley, June 24, 2016.Google Scholar
  11. Hu, P., Adler, N. E., Goldman, N., Weinstein, M., & Seeman, T. E. (2005). Relationship between subjective social status and measures of health in older Taiwanese persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review, 38, 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. PNAS, 107, 16489–16493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landefeld, J. C., Burmaster, K. B., Rehkopf, D. H., Leonard Syme, S., et al. (2014). The association between a living wage and subjective social status and self-rated health: A quasi-experimental study in the dominican republic. Social Science and Medicine, 121, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laumann, E. O., & Senter, R. (1976). Subjective social distance, occupational stratification, and forms of status and class consciousness: A cross-national replication and extension. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 1304–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1994). Updating occupational prestige and socioeconomic scores: How the new measures measure up. Sociological Methodology, 24, 1–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nielsen, Francois, Micah Roos, J., & Combs, R. M. (2015). Clues of subjective social status among young adults. Social Science Research, 52, 370–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nobles, J., Weintraub, M. R., & Adler, N. E. (2013). Subjective socioeconomic status and health: Relationships considered. Social Science and Medicine, 82, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Präg, P., Mills, M. C., & Wittek, R. (2016). Subjective socioeconomic status and health in cross-national comparison. Social Science and Medicine, 149, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quon, E. C., & McGrath, J. J. (2014). Subjective socioeconomic status and adolescent health: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 33, 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Radler, B. T., & Ryff, C. D. (2010). Who participates? Longitudinal retention in the MIDUS national study of health and well-being. Journal of Aging and Health, 22, 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raftery, A. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reitzel, L. R., Mazas, C. A., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Vidrine, J. I., Businelle, M. S., Kendzor, D. E., et al. (2010). Acculturative and neighborhood influences on subjective social status among Spanish-speaking Latino immigrant smokers. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 677–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, K. M., Al-Hamzawi, A. O., Andrade, L. H., Borges, G., et al. (2014). Associations between subjective social status and DSM-IV mental disorders. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 1400–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 and Medicine, 56, 1321–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh-Manoux, A., Marmot, M. G., & Adler, N. E. (2005). Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 855–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Speer, I. (2016). Race, wealth, and class identification in twenty-first-century American Society. Sociological Quarterly, 57, 356–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2006). Income inequality and population health: A review and explanation of the evidence. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 1768–1784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wolff, L. S., Subramanian, S. V., Acevedo-Garcia, D., Weber, D., & Kawachi, I. (2010). Compared to whom? Subjective social status, self-rated health, and referent group sensitivity in a diverse US sample. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 2019–2028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations