A Road Map for an Emerging Psychology of Social Class

Though the scientific study of social class is over a century old, theories regarding how social class shapes psychological experience are in their infancy. In this review, we provide a road map for the empirical study of an emerging psychology of social class. Specifically, we outline key measurement issues in the study of social class – including the importance of both objective indicators and subjective perceptions of social class – as well as theoretical insights into the role of the social class context in influencing behavior. We then summarize why a psychology of social class is likely to be a fruitful area of research and propose that social class environments guide psychological experience because they shape fundamental aspects of the self and patterns of relating to others. Finally, we differentiate social class from other rank-relevant states (e.g., power) and social categories (e.g., race ⁄ ethnicity), while also outlining potential avenues of future research. Compared to the rest of the world, Americans – perhaps due to placing hope in the American Dream and the promise of equal opportunity – are remarkably uncomfortable talking about social class, and believe that it does not factor into their everyday lives (e.g., Kingston, 2000; Mantsios, 2006). Contrary to this belief, the United States is faced with record levels of income inequality and one of the lowest rates of social mobility among industrialized nations (Burkhauser, Feng, Jenkins, & Larrimore, 2009; Fiske & Markus, 2012; Picketty & Saez, 2003). The premise of this article is that this growing social class divide not only influences access to economic resources, but also provides one of the primary foundations of social life. For example, social class shapes people’s daily lives by determining the neighborhoods in which they live and the occupations and organizations in which they participate (Domhoff, 1998). Social class also guides people’s customs and preferences for art, music, and literature (Bourdieu, 1984; Snibbe & Markus, 2005), and it shapes the nature and trajectory of the life course, including risks for physiological and psychological hardship, as well as mortality rates (Adler et al., 1994). Despite its remarkable influence on the landscape of social and psychological experience, until very recently, psychologists have been largely absent from the study of social class (Fiske & Markus, 2012; Lott, 2002). In this review, our goal is to provide a road map for researchers interested in this important area of inquiry – a road map for an emerging psychology of social class. To that end, we will outline some key considerations for researchers embarking on an empirical study of social class. First, we will outline some critical steps to take when measuring the social class construct – including how to measure both individuals’ objective (e.g., educational attainment) and subjective (e.g. perception of rank in the hierarchy) social class, while also taking into account how social class contexts are likely to shape a person’s experiences. Second, we will summarize why a psychology of social class is likely to The authors contributed equally to the writing of this manuscript and the ideas within it. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/9 (2012): 642–656, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd be a fruitful area of research. Specifically, we propose that social class contexts guide psychological experience because they shape fundamental aspects of the self and patterns of relating to others. In American contexts, these social class differences are expressed in terms of relatively greater independence and freedom of self-expression among individuals with higher social class standing and greater interdependence and social connection among individuals with lower social class standing. Third, we will discuss what is unique about social class, compared to other rank-relevant states (e.g., power) and categories of social experience (e.g., race ⁄ethnicity). How is Social Class Measured? There is an ongoing and contentious debate in the social sciences about the best single measure of social class. In what follows, we will review some of the most commonly used objective and subjective measures of the social class construct. We will also discuss how social contexts that differ by social class play a role in creating the cultural norms and expectations that promote class-specific psychological patterns. Objective Social Class Social class shapes people’s everyday life experiences because it is defined, in part, by an individual’s access to important material (e.g., financial assets, transportation, healthcare) and social (e.g., influential social networks, class-specific norms or values) resources. There are various objective indicators of social class that provide distinct pathways through which individuals can access these resources. Most research at the level of individuals has focused on level of educational attainment, income (personal or household), and occupation as the foundations of objective social class (Lareau & Conley, 2008; Oakes & Rossi, 2003). Educational attainment is often considered to be the most fundamental measure of social class because it provides access to elevated income, to prestigious occupations, and to the types of cultural capital needed to thrive in middleand upper-class environments (see Snibbe & Markus, 2005). For example, people who have attained 4-year college degrees can expect to earn twice as much money over the life course compared to people who have attained high-school degrees (Day & Newburger, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). A college degree also provides individuals with important cultural knowledge (e.g., manners, customs) and access to influential social networks (e.g., political connections; Domhoff, 1998). Recent increases in economic inequality in the United States, as well as other countries (e.g., Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009; Norton & Ariely, 2011) highlight the importance of income as another indicator of social class. Income is an informative measure because it provides the most direct assessment of an individual’s access to valued material goods and services (e.g., healthy food, reliable transportation). Income also predicts important lifeoutcomes related to social class: For instance, measures of household income cross-nationally predict reduced subjective well-being among lower-income individuals compared to their higher-income counterparts (Howell & Howell, 2008). Finally, occupation is an important indicator of social class because occupations carry with them their own set of formative contexts and psychological experiences. For example, higher prestige, professional occupations (e.g., law, medicine) – those afforded by high levels of educational attainment – tend to expose people to high levels of variety of tasks, substantive complexity, and freedom of choice. In contrast, lower prestige, Psychology of Social Class 643 a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/9 (2012): 642–656, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x working-class occupations (e.g., construction, service industries) tend to expose people to high levels of supervision, routine, and limited opportunities for choice and control (e.g., Kohn & Schoenbach, 1983; Kohn & Schooler, 1983). These three measures – educational attainment, income, and occupation – represent the most widely used indices of an individual’s objective social class. Subjective Social Class Although they are important, these three objective measures are not the only indicators of one’s social class. Above and beyond objective indicators of social class, people’s perceptions of where they reside in the social hierarchy make a difference for psychological functioning (Boyce, Brown, & Moore, 2010). In other words, social class is more than simply how much one has; rather, it is also how much one believes one has relative to others. This recognition has led researchers to consider another aspect of social class – one’s subjective perceptions of rank in society vis-à-vis others. The most widely-used index of social class rank is the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Socioeconomic Status (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000). In this measure, participants rank themselves in society or in one’s local community on a ladder with 10 rungs representing ascending levels of income, education, and occupation (Adler et al., 2000; Goodman et al., 2001). Research using this measure supports the idea that subjective perceptions of rank are an important and distinct aspect of social class. For instance, studies examining social class disparities in health demonstrate that subjective social class – measured using the MacArthur scale – predicts individuals’ perceptions of their health as well as their actual physiological health (e.g., susceptibility to a cold-causing virus). These findings hold even after accounting for objective measures of social class such as educational attainment and income (Adler et al., 2000; Cohen et al., 2008). Together, objective measures of social class – education, income, and occupation – and subjective perceptions of rank are important routes through which social class shapes psychological functioning. Social Class as a Context Education, income, occupation, and perceived rank are meaningful indicators of social class, in part, because they shape the social contexts to which people are exposed. For example, consider that people tend to live in neighborhoods, attend schools (Kusserow, 2004; Lareau, 2003; Nisbett, 2009), work together with (Argyle, 1994), and date and marry individuals from similar social class backgrounds (Sweeney & Cancian, 2004). Central to an emerging psychological study of social class is the understanding that social class is not simply a trait of individuals. Instead, social class is rendered meaningful through the contexts that people inhabit over time. The above examples illustrate that contexts are systematically organized by social class. These social class contexts expose people to common material and social conditions, which foster and require certain types of behavior over time. For example, limited economic assets in working-class contexts might mean that people must rely on others rather than on the healthcare system in times of physical illness (e.g., caring for a sick relative). Over time, these behavioral patterns become norms and expectations for the self and for how to relate to others. In this fashion, social class contexts serve to socialize and reinforce class-specific psychological patterns. Recent research on social class has provided several examples suggesting the importance of social class contexts in shaping psychological patterns. For instance, Stephens et al. 644 Psychology of Social Class a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/9 (2012): 642–656, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x (forthcoming) have found that educational contexts convey particular social class values and expectations for how to be an appropriate student. American colleges and universities are predominantly middleand upper-class contexts: that is, they were created and organized by some of the most highly educated and wealthy individuals in American society (c.f., Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). As a consequence, these contexts are not neutral or blind to social class. Instead, they reflect and perpetuate the particular cultural norms, values, and expectations that are most common among individuals who have experience in these middleand upper-class contexts (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, forthcoming). Contexts also provide information about personal social class rank and, as a result, may shape class-specific psychological patterns through these relative rank perceptions. For example, a person from a middle-class family background at an elite, private university may actually feel lower in social class as a result of comparisons to students from more wealthy and educated families. This comparison may in turn lead that person to express psychological patterns consistent with an individual from a lower social class background. In one illustrative study, Johnson, Richeson, and Finkel (2011) examined academic competency beliefs at an elite private university. The researchers found that students from middle-class families felt more socially rejected in this elite context and had greater concerns about their own academic competency in comparison to more affluent, upper-class students (Johnson et al., 2011). These examples illustrate an important consideration in the study of social class – that contexts are organized by social class and these contexts fundamentally shape the norms, values, and expectations to which individuals are exposed. In the section that follows, we turn to the question, ‘‘Why should psychologists study social class?’’ We answer this question by detailing how social class contexts guide class-specific psychological experiences related to conceptions of the self and patterns of relating to others. Why Should Psychologists Study Social Class? Though sociologists have studied social class for centuries, theories of social class have historically been confined to the group or societal levels (Durkheim, 1802; Marx & Engels, 1973 ⁄1848; Weber, 1958), and the potential impact of social class on individuals’ psychological states has gone largely undeveloped in this early work. In the time since, researchers have learned a great deal about how social class shapes the important contexts (e.g., neighborhoods, educational settings) in which people spend the majority of their daily lives (Bowen, Kurzweil, & Tobin, 2005; Kohn, 1969; Lareau, 2003), and the causes and consequences of social class disparities in health and psychological well-being (Adler et al., 1994). Despite this initial research, the question of how social class shapes individual psychological experience represents a rich and relatively uncharted terrain for future research. Social Class and the Self Recent research suggests that social class differences in the material and social conditions of the environment promote divergent conceptions of the self and patterns of relating to others. For example, in lower social class environments, the self is assumed to be connected and interdependent with others (e.g., Stephens, Hamedani, Markus, Bergsieker, & Eloul, 2009; Stephens, Markus, & Townsend, 2007). In lower social class environments of resource scarcity and diminished rank, individuals often experience situations that do not lend themselves to personal influence, choice, or control (Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Psychology of Social Class 645 a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/9 (2012): 642–656, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x Reay, Davies, David, & Ball, 2001). Moreover, when people from lower social class contexts encounter adversity (e.g., lose a job), they do not have the same type of material and economic safety net that is prevalent in higher social class contexts, and thus, people often need to rely on others for financial and social support (Lamont, 2000). Over time, due to the diminished resources, uncertainty, and unpredictability of their life contexts, individuals from lower social class contexts come to understand themselves as connected to others and as responsive to the social environment. In contrast, the material and social environments of higher social class individuals prioritize independence, personal freedom, and choice. In higher social class contexts, the self is assumed to be separate and independent from others, and as such, it is normative to stand out from others and to display one’s influence over others and the social context. Exposed to social environments with abundant material resources and elevated societal rank, higher social class individuals are free to pursue the goals and interests they choose for themselves (Johnson & Krueger, 2005; Lachman & Weaver, 1998), and to do so relatively free of concerns about material constraints. We theorize that these higher social class contexts enable people to experience themselves as distinct and separate from others, and as independent agents who are able to influence the world according to their personal preferences. These systematic social class differences in the material and social conditions of the environment foster different conceptions of the self, which, in turn, provide different blueprints for appropriate behavior (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2010). For example, reflecting the emergence of these class-specific blueprints for the self, Weininger and Lareau (2009) found – using detailed interviews and observations – that whereas workingclass parents stressed that their children should blend into their elementary school environments, parents from middle-class families were more likely to stress the importance of their children’s curiosity and independence. As a second example, Stephens et al. (2007)conducted a series of experimental studies that illuminate social class differences in the self. Specifically, these studies found that individuals from lower social class contexts tended to make choices that reflected a preference to be like others, whereas individuals from higher social class contexts tended to make choices that reflected a preference to differentiate themselves from others. For example, in one field study, college students from diverse social class backgrounds were presented with five pens (of two different colors) and asked to choose one as thanks for completing a prior survey. Four pens shared the same color (i.e., the majority pens) whereas one pen was the only one of its color (i.e., the minority pen). In the study, students from working-class backgrounds – whose parents had not earned a four-year college degree – more often chose the common or ‘‘majority’’ pen that resembled the other pens, suggesting a preference to be similar to others. In contrast, students from middleclass backgrounds – who had at least one parent with a four-year college degree – were more likely to choose a unique or ‘‘minority’’ pen, reflecting preferences to stand out and be independent from others (Stephens et al., 2007; see Figure 1). These social class differences in understandings of the self and behavior are also likely to have far-reaching consequences for students’ experiences in American academic contexts – in which the dominant cultural expectation is one of independence, self-expression, and personal freedom. For example, in a series of experiments (Stephens et al., forthcoming), American college students were assigned to read one of two university welcome messages, ostensibly from the university president. One message framed the university culture as independent (e.g., as about independent thinking and learning), while the other framed the university culture as interdependent (e.g., as about learning and 646 Psychology of Social Class a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/9 (2012): 642–656, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x working together with others). For students from working-class backgrounds, whose motives for attending college often focus on helping others and contributing to their community, the independent message created a sense of cultural mismatch that undermined their performance. Specifically, when the college experience was represented as focusing on norms of independence (i.e., the cultural status quo in American universities), the typical social class performance gap observed in American higher education emerged. That is, students from working-class backgrounds performed worse on academic tasks compared to students from middle-class backgrounds. However, when the college experience was represented as focusing on norms of interdependence, this social class gap in performance was eliminated: Students from working-class backgrounds performed just as well as their relatively privileged peers (Stephens et al., forthcoming). Social Class and Patterns of Relating to Others Class-related differences in conceptions of the self also engender different patterns of relating to others. Given exposure to norms of fitting in and prioritizing others’ needs, people with lower social class standing tend to be more socially responsive compared to people with higher social class standing. That is, people with lower social class standing tend to relate to others more easily, to understand others’ emotions more accurately, and to engage in more pro-social behavior. For example, Kraus and Keltner (2009) had university students from different social class backgrounds, measured in terms of parental education and income, engage in a social interaction with a stranger. In these interactions, individuals from lower social class backgrounds were more socially engaged, as evidenced by the tendency to display more head nods, laugh more, and engage in more eye contact with their interaction partner relative to individuals from higher social class backgrounds. In contrast, participants from higher social class backgrounds were relatively more disengaged during the interaction, as evidenced by the tendency to more often groom themselves, check their cell phones, and doodle on a questionnaire. Empathic accuracy, or the ability to read others’ emotions, is another indicator of the increased social responsiveness that is characteristic of people from lower social class contexts. Individuals from lower social class backgrounds tend to show elevated empathic accuracy, because reading others’ emotions is essential for developing the social connections that are valued and expected in lower social class environments. In one illustrative 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Middle class Working class % c ho os in g pe n Minority pen