ESSAY SAUCE

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Social divisions

Essay details and download:.

  • Subject area(s): Sociology essays
  • Reading time: 8 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 23 March 2018*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,181 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 9 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,181 words. Download the full version above.

The class social division in society does not only relate to a person’s life chances in terms of employment but can also affect an individuals’ educational expectancy and journey. This divide occurs as people from a middle-class background have the funding and resources to go onto higher education in this instance the class division has beneficial life chances for a person from a middle-class background. This is supported by the number of recorded applicants that UCAS (2013), received showing that the number of applicants from a disadvantaged area of England was around 16%, these applicants tended to be from working-class areas; in comparison to this the number of applicants from an advantaged or middle-class areas of England were around 53%. Bourdieu (1997) would explain this occurrence as a result of the capital, in particular the cultural capital that the middle-class applicants have. This indicates that they use the resources and contacts for the means of furthering their life chances by getting into the university of their choice which results in them having greater opportunities to not only have the qualifications that they want but to also use it in order to influence their opportunities in employment and many other aspects of their lives. Within the education aspect of society, especially amongst the university aspects of education, the theory of intersectionality of social divisions play a key role in a person’s chances for getting into their desired university, as an indicator a man from a working-class would be less inclined to apply or got to university in comparison to that of a woman from a working or middle-class background. This is supported by statistics collected by UCAS (2013), as it found that 40% of women applied to university in comparison to the 29.9% of men that applied. This shows that within the gender social division women are more likely to have the opportunity or chance in their life to go and study at university. This contrasts to that for the figures for men, this could be due to that they are seen as being less desirable for universities in comparison or it could be that due to their class background it might not be seen as the right opportunity/path for them to take in addition they might not have the opportunity as they might lack the income in order to afford the rising costs of studying at university.

The middle-class social group might have a greater opportunity to go to University there are some aspects of their everyday life that are less likely to occur due to their background. An example of this would be that they are less likely to be emerged within a community that develops and supports each other. An example of this comes from Janes and Mooney (2002: 24), where they outlined that many people living within gated communities tend to be from a middle-class background due to the level of income that they have access to; they highlight that with them living within these residences it invites social exclusion as they create a barrier between themselves and the rest of society. This limits their chance to be within a supportive community; in McKenzie’s (2002: 1349), journal of ‘St Ann’s’ she found that within the council estate they created a community that supported each other as each member could relate and feel safe amongst each other due to them having a collective identity of belonging. McKenzie’s (2002: 1349), study refers back to the concept of intersectionality as she discovered that within the community that she studied many of them were black single mothers that were from a working-class background would actually have greater opportunities to be involved and integrated within their community as they would feel safe and comfortable to be in their community. This contrasts to that of the middle-class gated community (Jane and Mooney 2002: 24), as the people living within their community would have different priorities as they could see the interactive community as being one that will distract them from their work, hence why they invite social exclusion by living in a gated community and have little opportunity to integrate themselves in a community that share the same priorities as them.

The discussion around poverty can lead to further acts of inequality and social exclusion amongst people as well as the limitations that people face in their life. Fulcher and Scott (2004: 645-647), outline that the measurement and the classification of poverty is actually a matter that is difficult to both identify and measure due to the changing attitudes/beliefs that people have over time regarding this matter. This idea of trying to map the areas of high levels of poverty dates back was done previously by Townsend (1979), where they highlighted that areas of people living in poverty tended to be confined to urban areas of the cities and within the country. He later found that many people, in particular children, living within these levels of poverty would miss out on many opportunities or were not given many opportunities. For instance, he highlighted that many people within these areas were limited to the areas that they could visit in terms of a holiday and were even limited to the amount of uninterr upted leisur e time that they could have. However, one of most influential types of poverty around in contemporary society is around the issue of food poverty, where it was identified that within the UK there are 4.7 million people that are living within food poverty. The social divisions amongst people facing food poverty has implications on their life chances as they might choose to have a cheap and small meal in order to afford the money to have access to other resources like heating. Referring back to the concept of intersectionality, the sense of food poverty seems to highlight the limitations that single, working-class mothers face when it comes towards the opportunity to have a nutritious meal (Garthwaite 2016: 115). A mother from a working-class background facing food poverty would often limit the opportunity that they would have for food in order for her children to acquire a meal. This can often cause wider health implications for herself as she would not be gaining enough nutrients in her daily life but for her this would be a necessity as it meant that her children could eat. Alongside this she comes from a working-class background this could limit the opportunity to gain enough money to obtain a healthy, nutritional meal as she might have to prioritise buying cheap food in order to eat over potentially not having enough money in order to pay for the gas and electricity that keeps them warm.

Overall, social divisions do relate and often influence the chances that people would receive within society. Going back to the argument of social class, many people from a working-class background would often be confined into low skilled manual labour jobs, unlike those from a middle-class background as they would often be in high position jobs such as managerial positions as they would often have the means, resources and opportunities in their life to gain the skills to place themselves in the highly paid roles. This is a result of the social division as the people in the working-class division would not be able to afford or have the contacts in order to have these same life chances from society. The argument shows that many of the social divisions in society like social class, ethnicity, gender and many more not only relates to the way people interact with each other but have larger implications on how life chances occur for individuals’. In addition to this the intersectionality of social divisions relate to an individuals’ life chances as each of the divisions interact with each other to create the perceptions and actions that the rest of society conduct towards people that are classified within multiple social divisions.

Bibliography

Anthias, F. 2005, “Social Stratification and Social Inequality: Models of Intersectionality and Identity” in Devine, F., et al (eds), Rethinking Class. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. “Outline of a Theory of Practice”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Evans, G. & Mellon, J. 2015, “Social Class. Identity, awareness and political attitudes: why are we still working class?”, University of Oxford, 33rd edition, British Social Attitudes, NatCen Social Research.

Fulcher, J. and J. Scott. 2003. “Inequality, Poverty and Wealth”, in Sociology, 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP.

Garthwaite, K. 2016. “’Doing the best I can with what I’ve got’: Food and health on a low income”, Chapter 6 in Hunger Pains: Life Inside Foodbank Britain, Bristol: Policy Press.

Janes, L and Mooney, G. 2002. “Place, Lifestyle and Social Divisions” in Braham, P. and Janes, L. (eds). 2002. Social Differences and Divisions. Oxford: Cowley.

Kyriakides, C; Virdee, S; and Modood, T. 2009. ‘Racism, Muslims and National Imagination”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 35(2).

McKenzie, L., 2013. “Narratives from a Nottingham council estate: a story of white working class mothers with mixed-race children”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(8).

Payne, G. (ed) 2006. Social Divisions. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Chapter 15 “Social Divisions as a Sociological Perspective”.

Townsend, P. 1979. “Poverty in the United Kingdom”. Harmondsworth: Penguin

UCAS, 2013, ‘UCAS Analysis & Research,’ https://www.ucas.com/sites/default/files/january-application-rates-13-01-30_0.pdf , date accessed: 26/10/17

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Social divisions . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sociology-essays/social-divisions/> [Accessed 12-07-24].

These Sociology essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

  • Accounting essays
  • Architecture essays
  • Business essays
  • Computer science essays
  • Criminology essays
  • Economics essays
  • Education essays
  • Engineering essays
  • English language essays
  • Environmental studies essays
  • Essay examples
  • Finance essays
  • Geography essays
  • Health essays
  • History essays
  • Hospitality and tourism essays
  • Human rights essays
  • Information technology essays
  • International relations
  • Leadership essays
  • Linguistics essays
  • Literature essays
  • Management essays
  • Marketing essays
  • Mathematics essays
  • Media essays
  • Medicine essays
  • Military essays
  • Miscellaneous essays
  • Music Essays
  • Nursing essays
  • Philosophy essays
  • Photography and arts essays
  • Politics essays
  • Project management essays
  • Psychology essays
  • Religious studies and theology essays
  • Sample essays
  • Science essays
  • Social work essays
  • Sociology essays
  • Sports essays
  • Types of essay
  • Zoology essays

Logo for M Libraries Publishing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

8.3 Social Class in the United States

Learning objectives.

  • Distinguish objective and subjective measures of social class.
  • Outline the functionalist view of the American class structure.
  • Outline the conflict view of the American class structure.
  • Discuss whether the United States has much vertical social mobility.

There is a surprising amount of disagreement among sociologists on the number of social classes in the United States and even on how to measure social class membership. We first look at the measurement issue and then discuss the number and types of classes sociologists have delineated.

Measuring Social Class

We can measure social class either objectively or subjectively . If we choose the objective method, we classify people according to one or more criteria, such as their occupation, education, and/or income. The researcher is the one who decides which social class people are in based on where they stand in regard to these variables. If we choose the subjective method, we ask people what class they think they are in. For example, the General Social Survey asks, “If you were asked to use one of four names for your social class, which would you say you belong in: the lower class, the working class, the middle class, or the upper class?” Figure 8.3 “Subjective Social Class Membership” depicts responses to this question. The trouble with such a subjective measure is that some people say they are in a social class that differs from what objective criteria might indicate they are in. This problem leads most sociologists to favor objective measures of social class when they study stratification in American society.

Figure 8.3 Subjective Social Class Membership

Subjective Social Class Membership: 45.7% Working, 43.4% Middle, 7.3% Lower, 3.6% Upper

Source: Data from General Social Survey, 2008.

Yet even here there is disagreement between functionalist theorists and conflict theorists on which objective measures to use. Functionalist sociologists rely on measures of socioeconomic status (SES) , such as education, income, and occupation, to determine someone’s social class. Sometimes one of these three variables is used by itself to measure social class, and sometimes two or all three of the variables are combined (in ways that need not concern us) to measure social class. When occupation is used, sociologists often rely on standard measures of occupational prestige. Since the late 1940s, national surveys have asked Americans to rate the prestige of dozens of occupations, and their ratings are averaged together to yield prestige scores for the occupations (Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964). Over the years these scores have been relatively stable. Here are some average prestige scores for various occupations: physician, 86; college professor, 74; elementary school teacher, 64; letter carrier, 47; garbage collector, 28; and janitor, 22.

Despite SES’s usefulness, conflict sociologists prefer different, though still objective, measures of social class that take into account ownership of the means of production and other dynamics of the workplace. These measures are closer to what Marx meant by the concept of class throughout his work, and they take into account the many types of occupations and workplace structures that he could not have envisioned when he was writing during the 19th century.

For example, corporations have many upper-level managers who do not own the means of production but still determine the activities of workers under them. They thus do not fit neatly into either of Marx’s two major classes, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Recognizing these problems, conflict sociologists delineate social class on the basis of several factors, including the ownership of the means of production, the degree of autonomy workers enjoy in their jobs, and whether they supervise other workers or are supervised themselves (Wright, 2000).

The American Class Structure

As should be evident, it is not easy to determine how many social classes exist in the United States. Over the decades, sociologists have outlined as many as six or seven social classes based on such things as, once again, education, occupation, and income, but also on lifestyle, the schools people’s children attend, a family’s reputation in the community, how “old” or “new” people’s wealth is, and so forth (Coleman & Rainwater, 1978; Warner & Lunt, 1941). For the sake of clarity, we will limit ourselves to the four social classes included in Figure 8.3 “Subjective Social Class Membership” : the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. Although subcategories exist within some of these broad categories, they still capture the most important differences in the American class structure (Gilbert, 2011). The annual income categories listed for each class are admittedly somewhat arbitrary but are based on the percentage of households above or below a specific income level.

The Upper Class

Depending on how it is defined, the upper class consists of about 4% of the U.S. population and includes households with annual incomes (2009 data) of more than $200,000 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2010). Some scholars would raise the ante further by limiting the upper class to households with incomes of at least $500,000 or so, which in turn reduces this class to about 1% of the population, with an average wealth (income, stocks and bonds, and real estate) of several million dollars. However it is defined, the upper class has much wealth, power, and influence (Kerbo, 2009).

A mansion in Highland Park

The upper class in the United States consists of about 4% of all households and possesses much wealth, power, and influence.

Steven Martin – Highland Park Mansion – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Members of the upper-upper class have “old” money that has been in their families for generations; some boast of their ancestors coming over on the Mayflower . They belong to exclusive clubs and live in exclusive neighborhoods; have their names in the Social Register ; send their children to expensive private schools; serve on the boards of museums, corporations, and major charities; and exert much influence on the political process and other areas of life from behind the scenes. Members of the lower-upper class have “new” money acquired through hard work, lucky investments, and/or athletic prowess. In many ways their lives are similar to those of their old-money counterparts, but they do not enjoy the prestige that old money brings. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and the richest person in the United States in 2009, would be considered a member of the lower-upper class because his money is too “new.” Because he does not have a long-standing pedigree, upper-upper class members might even be tempted to disparage his immense wealth, at least in private.

The Middle Class

Many of us like to think of ourselves in the middle class, as Figure 8.3 “Subjective Social Class Membership” showed, and many of us are. The middle class includes the 46% of all households whose annual incomes range from $50,000 to $199,999. As this very broad range suggests, the middle class includes people with many different levels of education and income and many different types of jobs. It is thus helpful to distinguish the upper-middle class from the lower-middle class on the upper and lower ends of this income bracket, respectively. The upper-middle class has household incomes from about $150,000 to $199,000, amounting to about 4.4% of all households. People in the upper-middle class typically have college and, very often, graduate or professional degrees; live in the suburbs or in fairly expensive urban areas; and are bankers, lawyers, engineers, corporate managers, and financial advisers, among other occupations.

A house for someone in the upper-middle class

The upper-middle class in the United States consists of about 4.4% of all households, with incomes ranging from $150,000 to $199,000.

Alyson Hurt – Back Porch – CC BY-NC 2.0.

The lower-middle class has household incomes from about $50,000 to $74,999, amounting to about 18% of all families. People in this income bracket typically work in white-collar jobs as nurses, teachers, and the like. Many have college degrees, usually from the less prestigious colleges, but many also have 2-year degrees or only a high school degree. They live somewhat comfortable lives but can hardly afford to go on expensive vacations or buy expensive cars and can send their children to expensive colleges only if they receive significant financial aid.

The Working Class

A not-so-nice house belonging to someone who is part of the blue-collar/less skilled clerical jobs.

The working class in the United States consists of about 25% of all households, whose members work in blue-collar jobs and less skilled clerical positions.

Lisa Risager – Ebeltoft – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Working-class households have annual incomes between about $25,000 and $49,999 and constitute about 25% of all U.S. households. They generally work in blue-collar jobs such as factory work, construction, restaurant serving, and less skilled clerical positions. People in the working class typically do not have 4-year college degrees, and some do not have high school degrees. Although most are not living in official poverty, their financial situation is very uncomfortable. A single large medical bill or expensive car repair would be almost impossible to pay without going into considerable debt. Working-class families are far less likely than their wealthier counterparts to own their own homes or to send their children to college. Many of them live at risk for unemployment as their companies downsize by laying off workers even in good times, and hundreds of thousands began to be laid off when the U.S. recession began in 2008.

The Lower Class

An array of trailer homes

The lower class or poor in the United States constitute about 25% of all households. Many poor individuals lack high school degrees and are unemployed or employed only part time.

Chris Hunkeler – Trailer Homes – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Although lower class is a common term, many observers prefer a less negative-sounding term like the poor, which is the term used here. The poor have household incomes under $25,000 and constitute about 25% of all U.S. households. Many of the poor lack high school degrees, and many are unemployed or employed only part time in semiskilled or unskilled jobs. When they do work, they work as janitors, house cleaners, migrant laborers, and shoe shiners. They tend to rent apartments rather than own their own homes, lack medical insurance, and have inadequate diets. We will discuss the poor further when we focus later in this chapter on inequality and poverty in the United States.

Social Mobility

Regardless of how we measure and define social class, what are our chances of moving up or down within the American class structure? As we saw earlier, the degree of vertical social mobility is a key distinguishing feature of systems of stratification. Class systems such as in the United States are thought to be open, meaning that social mobility is relatively high. It is important, then, to determine how much social mobility exists in the United States.

Here we need to distinguish between two types of vertical social mobility. Intergenerational mobility refers to mobility from one generation to the next within the same family. If children from poor parents end up in high-paying jobs, the children have experienced upward intergenerational mobility. Conversely, if children of college professors end up hauling trash for a living, these children have experienced downward intergenerational mobility. Intragenerational mobility refers to mobility within a person’s own lifetime. If you start out as an administrative assistant in a large corporation and end up as an upper-level manager, you have experienced upward intragenerational mobility. But if you start out from business school as an upper-level manager and get laid off 10 years later because of corporate downsizing, you have experienced downward intragenerational mobility.

Sociologists have conducted a good deal of research on vertical mobility, much of it involving the movement of males up or down the occupational prestige ladder compared to their fathers, with the earliest studies beginning in the 1960s (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Featherman & Hauser, 1978). For better or worse, the focus on males occurred because the initial research occurred when many women were still homemakers and also because women back then were excluded from many studies in the social and biological sciences. The early research on males found that about half of sons end up in higher-prestige jobs than their fathers had but that the difference between the sons’ jobs and their fathers’ was relatively small. For example, a child of a janitor may end up running a hardware store but is very unlikely to end up as a corporate executive. To reach that lofty position, it helps greatly to have parents in jobs much more prestigious than a janitor’s. Contemporary research also finds much less mobility among African Americans and Latinos than among non-Latino whites with the same education and family backgrounds, suggesting an important negative impact of racial and ethnic discrimination (see Chapter 7 “Deviance, Crime, and Social Control” ).

College Graduates at Commencement

A college education is a key step toward achieving upward social mobility. However, the payoff of education is often higher for men than for women and for whites than for people of color.

Nazareth College – Commencement 2013 – CC BY 2.0.

A key vehicle for upward mobility is formal education. Regardless of the socioeconomic status of our parents, we are much more likely to end up in a high-paying job if we attain a college degree or, increasingly, a graduate or professional degree. Figure 8.4 “Education and Median Earnings of Year-Round, Full-Time Workers, 2007” vividly shows the difference that education makes for Americans’ median annual incomes. Notice, however, that for a given level of education, men’s incomes are greater than women’s. Figure 8.4 “Education and Median Earnings of Year-Round, Full-Time Workers, 2007” thus suggests that the payoff of education is higher for men than for women, and many studies support this conclusion (Green & Ferber, 2008). The reasons for this gender difference are complex and will be discussed further in Chapter 11 “Gender and Gender Inequality” . To the extent vertical social mobility exists in the United States, then, it is higher for men than for women and higher for whites than for people of color.

Figure 8.4 Education and Median Earnings of Year-Round, Full-Time Workers, 2007

Education and Median Earnings of Year-Round, Full-Time Workers, 2007

Source: Data from U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2010 . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab .

Certainly the United States has upward social mobility, even when we take into account gender and racial discrimination. Whether we conclude the United States has a lot of vertical mobility or just a little is the key question, and the answer to this question depends on how the data are interpreted. People can and do move up the socioeconomic ladder, but their movement is fairly limited. Hardly anyone starts at the bottom of the ladder and ends up at the top. As we see later in this chapter, recent trends in the U.S. economy have made it more difficult to move up the ladder and have even worsened the status of some people.

One way of understanding the issue of U.S. mobility is to see how much parents’ education affects the education their children attain. Figure 8.5 “Parents’ Education and Percentage of Respondents Who Have a College Degree” compares how General Social Survey respondents with parents of different educational backgrounds fare in attaining a college (bachelor’s) degree. For the sake of clarity, the figure includes only those respondents whose parents had the same level of education as each other: they either both dropped out of high school, both were high school graduates, or both were college graduates.

Figure 8.5 Parents’ Education and Percentage of Respondents Who Have a College Degree

Parents' Education and Percentage of Respondents Who Have a College Degree

As Figure 8.5 “Parents’ Education and Percentage of Respondents Who Have a College Degree” indicates, we are much more likely to get a college degree if our parents had college degrees themselves. The two bars for respondents whose parents were high school graduates or dropouts, respectively, do represent upward mobility, because the respondents are graduating from college even though their parents did not. But the three bars taken together also show that our chances of going to college depend heavily on our parents’ education (and presumably their income and other aspects of our family backgrounds). The American Dream does exist, but it is much more likely to remain only a dream unless we come from advantaged backgrounds. In fact, there is less vertical mobility in the United States than in other Western democracies. As a recent analysis summarized the evidence, “There is considerably more mobility in most of the other developed economies of Europe and Scandinavia than in the United States” (Mishel, Bernstein, & Shierholz, 2009, p. 108).

Key Takeaways

  • Several ways of measuring social class exist. Functionalist and conflict sociologists disagree on which objective criteria to use in measuring social class. Subjective measures of social class, which rely on people rating their own social class, may lack some validity.
  • Sociologists disagree on the number of social classes in the United States, but a common view is that the United States has four classes: upper, middle, working, and lower. Further variations exist within the upper and middle classes.
  • The United States has some vertical social mobility, but not as much as several nations in Western Europe.

For Your Review

  • Which way of measuring social class do you prefer, objective or subjective? Explain your answer.
  • Which objective measurement of social class do you prefer, functionalist or conflict? Explain your answer.

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure . New York, NY: Wiley.

Coleman, R. P., & Rainwater, L. (1978). Social standing in America . New York, NY: Basic Books.

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2010). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2009 (Current Population Report P60-238). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Featherman, D. L., & Hauser, R. M. (1978). Opportunity and change . New York, NY: Academic Press.

Gilbert, D. (2011). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Green, C. A., & Ferber, M. A. (2008). The long-term impact of labor market interruptions: How crucial is timing? Review of Social Economy, 66 , 351–379.

Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P., & Rossi, P. (1964). Occupational prestige in the United States, 1925–63. American Journal of Sociology, 70 , 286–302.

Kerbo, H. R. (2009). Social stratification and inequality . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Shierholz, H. (2009). The state of working America 2008/2009 . Ithaca, NY: ILR Press [An imprint of Cornell University Press].

Warner, W. L., & Lunt, P. S. (1941). The social life of a modern community . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wright, E. O. (2000). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Wiley Open Access Collection

Logo of blackwellopen

The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour

Antony s. r. manstead.

1 Cardiff University, UK

Drawing on recent research on the psychology of social class, I argue that the material conditions in which people grow up and live have a lasting impact on their personal and social identities and that this influences both the way they think and feel about their social environment and key aspects of their social behaviour. Relative to middle‐class counterparts, lower/working‐class individuals are less likely to define themselves in terms of their socioeconomic status and are more likely to have interdependent self‐concepts; they are also more inclined to explain social events in situational terms, as a result of having a lower sense of personal control. Working‐class people score higher on measures of empathy and are more likely to help others in distress. The widely held view that working‐class individuals are more prejudiced towards immigrants and ethnic minorities is shown to be a function of economic threat, in that highly educated people also express prejudice towards these groups when the latter are described as highly educated and therefore pose an economic threat. The fact that middle‐class norms of independence prevail in universities and prestigious workplaces makes working‐class people less likely to apply for positions in such institutions, less likely to be selected and less likely to stay if selected. In other words, social class differences in identity, cognition, feelings, and behaviour make it less likely that working‐class individuals can benefit from educational and occupational opportunities to improve their material circumstances. This means that redistributive policies are needed to break the cycle of deprivation that limits opportunities and threatens social cohesion.

We are all middle class now. John Prescott, former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, 1997
Class is a Communist concept. It groups people as bundles and sets them against one another. Margaret Thatcher, former Conservative Prime Minister, 1992

One of the ironies of modern Western societies, with their emphasis on meritocratic values that promote the notion that people can achieve what they want if they have enough talent and are prepared to work hard, is that the divisions between social classes are becoming wider, not narrower. In the United Kingdom, for example, figures from the Equality Trust ( 2017 ) show that the top one‐fifth of households have 40% of national income, whereas the bottom one‐fifth have just 8%. These figures are based on 2012 data. Between 1938 and 1979, income inequality in the United Kingdom did reduce to some extent, but in subsequent decades, this process has reversed. Between 1979 and 2009/2010, the top 10% of the population increased its share of national income from 21% to 31%, whereas the share received by the bottom 10% fell from 4% to 1%. Wealth inequality is even starker than income inequality. Figures from the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS, 2014 ) show that in the period 2012–2014, the wealthiest 10% of households in Great Britain owned 45% of household wealth, whereas the least wealthy 50% of households owned <9%. How can these very large divisions in material income and wealth be reconciled with the view that the class structure that used to prevail in the United Kingdom until at least the mid‐20th century is no longer relevant, because the traditional working class has ‘disappeared’, as asserted by John Prescott in one of the opening quotes, and reflected in the thesis of embourgeoisement analysed by Goldthorpe and Lockwood ( 1963 )? More pertinently for the present article, what implications do these changing patterns of wealth and income distribution have for class identity, social cognition, and social behaviour?

The first point to address concerns the supposed disappearance of the class system. As recent sociological research has conclusively shown, the class system in the United Kingdom is very much still in existence, albeit in a way that differs from the more traditional forms that were based primarily on occupation. In one of the more comprehensive recent studies, Savage et al . ( 2013 ) analysed the results of a large survey of social class in the United Kingdom, the BBC's 2011 Great British Class Survey, which involved 161,400 web respondents, along with the results of a nationally representative sample survey. Using latent class analysis, the authors identified seven classes, ranging from an ‘elite’, with an average annual household income of £89,000, to a ‘precariat’ with an average annual household income of £8,000. Among the many interesting results is the fact that the ‘traditional working‐class’ category formed only 14% of the population. This undoubtedly reflects the impact of de‐industrialization and is almost certainly the basis of the widely held view that the ‘old’ class system in the United Kingdom no longer applies. As Savage et al .'s research clearly shows, the old class system has been reconfigured as a result of economic and political developments, but it is patently true that the members of the different classes identified by these researchers inhabit worlds that rarely intersect, let alone overlap. The research by Savage et al . revealed that the differences between the social classes they identified extended beyond differences in financial circumstances. There were also marked differences in social and cultural capital, as indexed by size of social network and extent of engagement with different cultural activities, respectively. From a social psychological perspective, it seems likely that growing up and living under such different social and economic contexts would have a considerable impact on people's thoughts, feelings and behaviours. The central aim of this article was to examine the nature of this impact.

One interesting reflection of the complicated ways in which objective and subjective indicators of social class intersect can be found in an analysis of data from the British Social Attitudes survey (Evans & Mellon, 2016 ). Despite the fact that there has been a dramatic decline in traditional working‐class occupations, large numbers of UK citizens still describe themselves as being ‘working class’. Overall, around 60% of respondents define themselves as working class, and the proportion of people who do so has hardly changed during the past 33 years. One might reasonably ask whether and how much it matters that many people whose occupational status suggests that they are middle class describe themselves as working class. Evans and Mellon ( 2016 ) show quite persuasively that this self‐identification does matter. In all occupational classes other than managerial and professional, whether respondents identified themselves as working class or middle class made a substantial difference to their political attitudes, with those identifying as working class being less likely to be classed as right‐wing. No wonder Margaret Thatcher was keen to dispense with the concept of class, as evidenced by the quotation at the start of this paper. Moreover, self‐identification as working class was significantly associated with social attitudes in all occupational classes. For example, these respondents were more likely to have authoritarian attitudes and less likely to be in favour of immigration, a point I will return to later. It is clear from this research that subjective class identity is linked to quite marked differences in socio‐political attitudes.

A note on terminology

In what follows, I will refer to a set of concepts that are related but by no means interchangeable. As we have already seen, there is a distinction to be drawn between objective and subjective indicators of social class. In Marxist terms, class is defined objectively in terms of one's relationship to the means of production. You either have ownership of the means of production, in which case you belong to the bourgeoisie, or you sell your labour, in which case you belong to the proletariat, and there is a clear qualitative difference between the two classes. This worked well when most people could be classified either as owners or as workers. As we have seen, such an approach has become harder to sustain in an era when traditional occupations have been shrinking or have already disappeared, a sizeable middle‐class of managers and professionals has emerged, and class divisions are based on wealth and social and cultural capital.

An alternative approach is one that focuses on quantitative differences in socioeconomic status (SES), which is generally defined in terms of an individual's economic position and educational attainment, relative to others, as well as his or her occupation. As will be shown below, when people are asked about their identities, they think more readily in terms of SES than in terms of social class. This is probably because they have a reasonable sense of where they stand, relative to others, in terms of economic factors and educational attainment, and perhaps recognize that traditional boundaries between social classes have become less distinct. For these reasons, much of the social psychological literature on social class has focused on SES as indexed by income and educational attainment, and/or on subjective social class, rather than social class defined in terms of relationship to the means of production. For present purposes, the terms ‘working class’, which tends to be used more by European researchers, and ‘lower class’, which tends to be used by US researchers, are used interchangeably. Similarly, the terms ‘middle class’ and ‘upper class’ will be used interchangeably, despite the different connotations of the latter term in the United States and in Europe, where it tends to be reserved for members of the land‐owning aristocracy. A final point about terminology concerns ‘ideology’, which will here be used to refer to a set of beliefs, norms and values, examples being the meritocratic ideology that pervades most education systems and the (related) ideology of social mobility that is prominent in the United States.

Socioeconomic status and identity

Social psychological analyses of identity have traditionally not paid much attention to social class or SES as a component of identity. Instead, the focus has been on categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and age. Easterbrook, Kuppens, and Manstead ( 2018 ) analysed data from two large, representative samples of British adults and showed that respondents placed high subjective importance on their identities that are indicative of SES. Indeed, they attached at least as much importance to their SES identities as they did to identities (such as ethnicity or gender) more commonly studied by self and identity researchers. Easterbrook and colleagues also showed that objective indicators of a person's SES were robust and powerful predictors of the importance they placed on different types of identities within their self‐concepts: Those with higher SES attached more importance to identities that are indicative of their SES position, but less importance on identities that are rooted in basic demographics or related to their sociocultural orientation (and vice versa).

To arrive at these conclusions, Easterbook and colleagues analysed data from two large British surveys: The Citizenship Survey (CS; Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012 ); and Understanding Society: The UK Household Longitudinal Study (USS; Buck & McFall, 2012 ). The CS is a (now discontinued) biannual survey of a regionally representative sample of around 10,000 adults in England and Wales, with an ethnic minority boost sample of around 5,000. The researchers analysed the most recent data, collected via interviews in 2010–2011. The USS is an annual longitudinal household panel survey that began in 2009. Easterbrook and colleagues analysed Wave 5 (2013–2014), the more recent of the two waves in which the majority of respondents answered questions relevant to class and other social identities.

Both the CS and the USS included a question about the extent to which respondents incorporated different identities into their sense of self. Respondents were asked how important these identities were ‘to your sense of who you are’. The CS included a broad range of identities, including profession, ethnic background, family, gender, age/life stage, income and education. The USS included a shorter list of identities, including profession, education, ethnic background, family, gender and age/life stage. When the responses to these questions were factor analysed, Easterbrook and colleagues found three factors that were common to the two datasets: SES‐based identities (e.g., income), basic‐demographic identities (e.g., age), and identities based on sociocultural orientation (e.g., ethnic background). In both datasets, the importance of each of these three identities was systematically related to objective indicators of the respondents’ SES: As the respondent's SES increased, the subjective importance of SES‐related identities increased, whereas the importance of basic‐demographic and (to a lesser extent) sociocultural identities decreased. Interestingly, these findings echo those of a qualitative, interview‐based study conducted with American college students: Aries and Seider ( 2007 ) found that affluent respondents were more likely than their less affluent counterparts to acknowledge the importance of social class in shaping their identities. As the researchers put it, ‘The affluent students were well aware of the educational benefits that had accrued from their economically privileged status and of the opportunities that they had to travel and pursue their interests. The lower‐income students were more likely to downplay class in their conception of their own identities than were the affluent students’ (p. 151).

Thus, despite SES receiving relatively scant attention from self and identity researchers, there is converging quantitative and qualitative evidence that SES plays an important role in structuring the self‐concept.

Contexts that shape self‐construal: Home, school, and work

Stephens, Markus, and Phillips ( 2014 ) have analysed the ways in which social class shapes the self‐concept through the ‘gateway contexts’ of home, school, and work. With a focus on the United States, but with broader implications, they argue that social class gives rise to culture‐specific selves and patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting. One type of self they label ‘hard interdependence.’ This, they argue, is characteristic of those who grow up in low‐income, working‐class environments. As the authors put it, ‘With higher levels of material constraints and fewer opportunities for influence, choice, and control, working‐class contexts tend to afford an understanding of the self and behavior as interdependent with others and the social context’ (p. 615). The ‘hard’ aspect of this self derives from the resilience that is needed to cope with adversity. The other type of self the authors identify is ‘expressive independence’, which is argued to be typical of those who grow up in affluent, middle‐class contexts. By comparison with working‐class people, those who grow up in middle‐class households ‘need to worry far less about making ends meet or overcoming persistent threats … Instead, middle‐class contexts enable people to act in ways that reflect and further reinforce the independent cultural ideal – expressing their personal preferences, influencing their social contexts, standing out from others, and developing and exploring their own interests’ (p. 615). Stephens and colleagues review a wide range of work on socialization that supports their argument that the contexts of home, school and workplace foster these different self‐conceptions. They also argue that middle‐class schools and workplaces use expressive independence as a standard for measuring success, and thereby create institutional barriers to upward social mobility.

The idea that schools are contexts in which social class inequalities are reinforced may initially seem puzzling, given that schools are supposed to be meritocratic environments in which achievement is shaped by ability and effort, rather than by any advantage conferred by class background. However, as Bourdieu and Passeron ( 1990 ) have argued, the school system reproduces social inequalities by promoting norms and values that are more familiar to children from middle‐class backgrounds. To the extent that this helps middle‐class children to outperform their working‐class peers, the ‘meritocratic’ belief that such performance differences are due to differences in ability and/or effort will serve to ‘explain’ and legitimate unequal performance. Consistent with this argument, Darnon, Wiederkehr, Dompnier, and Martinot ( 2018 ) primed the concept of merit in French fifth‐grade schoolchildren and found that this led to lower scores on language and mathematics tests – but that this only applied to low‐SES children. Moreover, the effect of the merit prime on test performance was mediated by the extent to which the children endorsed meritocratic beliefs. Here, then, is evidence that the ideology of meritocracy helps to reproduce social class differences in school settings.

Subjective social class

Stephens et al .’s ( 2014 ) conceptualization of culture‐specific selves that vary as a function of social class is compatible with the ‘subjective social rank’ argument advanced by Kraus, Piff, and Keltner ( 2011 ). The latter authors argue that the differences in material resources available to working‐ and middle‐class people create cultural identities that are based on subjective perceptions of social rank in relation to others. These perceptions are based on distinctive patterns of observable behaviour arising from differences in wealth, education, and occupation. ‘To the extent that these patterns of behavior are both observable and reliably associated with individual wealth, occupational prestige, and education, they become potential signals to others of a person's social class’ (Kraus et al ., 2011 , p. 246). Among the signals of social class is non‐verbal behaviour. Kraus and Keltner ( 2009 ) studied non‐verbal behaviour in pairs of people from different social class backgrounds and found that whereas upper‐class individuals were more disengaged non‐verbally, lower‐class individuals exhibited more socially engaged eye contact, head nods, and laughter. Furthermore, when naïve observers were shown 60‐s excerpts of these interactions, they used these disengaged versus engaged non‐verbal behavioural styles to make judgements of the educational and income backgrounds of the people they had seen with above‐chance accuracy. In other words, social class differences are reflected in social signals, and these signals can be used by individuals to assess their subjective social rank. By comparing their wealth, education, occupation, aesthetic tastes, and behaviour with those of others, individuals can determine where they stand in the social hierarchy, and this subjective social rank then shapes other aspects of their social behaviour. More recent research has confirmed these findings. Becker, Kraus, and Rheinschmidt‐Same ( 2017 ) found that people's social class could be judged with above‐chance accuracy from uploaded Facebook photographs, while Kraus, Park, and Tan ( 2017 ) found that when Americans were asked to judge a speaker's social class from just seven spoken words, the accuracy of their judgments was again above chance.

The fact that there are behavioural signals of social class also opens up the potential for others to hold prejudiced attitudes and to engage in discriminatory behaviour towards those from a lower social class, although Kraus et al . ( 2011 ) focus is on how the social comparison process affects the self‐perception of social rank, and how this in turn affects other aspects of social behaviour. These authors argue that subjective social rank ‘exerts broad influences on thought, emotion, and social behavior independently of the substance of objective social class’ (p. 248). The relation between objective and subjective social class is an interesting issue in its own right. Objective social class is generally operationalized in terms of wealth and income, educational attainment, and occupation. These are the three ‘gateway contexts’ identified by Stephens et al . ( 2014 ). As argued by them, these contexts have a powerful influence on individual cognition and behaviour who operate within them, but they do not fully determine how individuals developing and living in these contexts think, feel, and act. Likewise, there will be circumstances in which individuals who objectively are, say, middle‐class construe themselves as having low subjective social rank as a result of the context in which they live.

There is evidence from health psychology that measures of objective and subjective social class have independent effects on health outcomes, with subjective social class explaining variation in health outcomes over and above what can be accounted for in terms of objective social class (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000 ; Cohen et al ., 2008 ). For example, in the prospective study by Cohen et al . ( 2008 ), 193 volunteers were exposed to a cold or influenza virus and monitored in quarantine for objective and subjective signs of illness. Higher subjective class was associated with less risk of becoming ill as a result of virus exposure, and this relation was independent of objective social class. Additional analyses suggested that the impact of subjective social class on likelihood of becoming ill was due in part to differences in sleep quantity and quality. The most plausible explanation for such findings is that low subjective social class is associated with greater stress. It may be that seeing oneself as being low in subjective class is itself a source of stress, or that it increases vulnerability to the effects of stress.

Below I organize the social psychological literature on social class in terms of the impact of class on three types of outcome: thought , encompassing social cognition and attitudes; emotion , with a focus on moral emotions and prosocial behaviour; and behaviour in high‐prestige educational and workplace settings. I will show that these impacts of social class are consistent with the view that the different construals of the self that are fostered by growing up in low versus high social class contexts have lasting psychological consequences.

Social cognition and attitudes

The ways in which these differences in self‐construal shape social cognition have been synthesized into a theoretical model by Kraus, Piff, Mendoza‐Denton, Rheinschmidt, and Keltner ( 2012 ). This model is shown in Figure  1 . They characterize the way lower‐class individuals think about the social environment as ‘contextualism’, meaning a psychological orientation that is motivated by the need to deal with external constraints and threats; and the way that upper‐class people think about the social environment as ‘solipsism’, meaning an orientation that is motivated by internal states such as emotion and by personal goals. One way in which these different orientations manifest themselves is in differences in responses to threat. The premise here is that lower‐class contexts are objectively characterized by greater levels of threat, as reflected in less security in employment, housing, personal safety, and health. These chronic threats foster the development of a ‘threat detection system’, with the result that people who grow up in such environments have a heightened vigilance to threat.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is BJSO-57-267-g001.jpg

Model of the way in which middle‐ and working‐class contexts shape social cognition, as proposed by Kraus et al . ( 2012 ). From Kraus et al . ( 2012 ), published by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission.

Another important difference between the contextualist lower‐class orientation and the solipsistic upper‐class one, according to Kraus et al . ( 2012 ), is in perceived control. Perceived control is closely related to other key psychological constructs, such as attributions. The evidence shows very clearly that those with lower subjective social class are also lower in their sense of personal control, and it also suggests that this reduced sense of control is related to a preference for situational (rather than dispositional) attributions for a range of social phenomena, including social inequality. The logic connecting social class to perceptions of control is straightforward: Those who grow up in middle‐ or upper‐class environments are likely to have more material and psychological resources available to them, and as a result have stronger beliefs about the extent to which they can shape their own social outcomes; by contrast, those who grow up in lower‐class environments are likely to have fewer resources available to them, and as a result have weaker beliefs about their ability to control their outcomes. There is good empirical support for these linkages. In a series of four studies, Kraus, Piff, and Keltner ( 2009 ) found that, by comparison with their higher subjective social class counterparts, lower subjective social class individuals (1) reported lower perceived control and (2) were more likely to explain various phenomena, ranging from income inequality to broader social outcomes like getting into medical school, contracting HIV, or being obese, as caused by external factors, ones that are beyond the control of the individual. Moreover, consistent with the authors’ reasoning, there was a significant indirect effect of subjective social class on the tendency to see phenomena as caused by external factors, via perceived control.

Another important social cognition measure in relation to social class is prejudice. There are two aspects of prejudice in this context. One is prejudice against people of a different class than one's own and especially attitudes towards those who are poor or unemployed; the other is the degree to which people's prejudiced attitudes about other social groups are associated with their own social class. Regarding attitudes to people who belong to a different social class, the UK evidence clearly shows that attitudes to poverty have changed over the last three decades, in that there is a rising trend for people to believe that those who live in need do so because of a lack of willpower, or because of laziness, accompanied by a corresponding decline in the belief that people live in need because of societal injustice (Clery, Lee, & Kunz, 2013 ). Interestingly, in their analysis of British Social Attitudes data over a period of 28 years, Clery et al . conclude that ‘there are no clear patterns of change in the views of different social classes, suggesting changing economic circumstances exert an impact on attitudes to poverty across society, not just among those most likely to be affected by them’ (p. 18). Given the changing attitudes to poverty, it is unsurprising to find that public attitudes to welfare spending and to redistributive taxation have also changed in a way that reflects less sympathy for those living in poverty. For example, attitudes to benefits for the unemployed have changed sharply in the United Kingdom since 1997, when a majority of respondents still believed that benefits were too low. By 2008, an overwhelming majority of respondents believed that these benefits were too high (Taylor‐Gooby, 2013 ). The way in which economic austerity has affected attitudes to these issues was the subject of qualitative research conducted by Valentine ( 2014 ). Interviews with 90 people in northern England, drawn from a range of social and ethnic backgrounds, showed that many respondents believed that unemployment is due to personal, rather than structural, failings, and that it is a ‘lifestyle choice’, leading interviewees to blame the unemployed for their lack of work and to have negative attitudes to welfare provision. Valentine ( 2014 , p. 2) observed that ‘a moralised sense of poverty as the result of individual choice, rather than structural disadvantage and inequality, was in evidence across the majority of respondents’, and that ‘Negative attitudes to welfare provision were identified across a variety of social positions and were not exclusively reserved to individuals from either working class or middle class backgrounds’.

Turning to the attitudes to broader social issues held by members of different social classes, there is a long tradition in social science of arguing that working‐class people are more prejudiced on a number of issues, especially with respect to ethnic minorities and immigrants (e.g., Lipset, 1959 ). Indeed, there is no shortage of evidence showing that working‐class white people do express more negative attitudes towards these groups. One explanation for this association is that working‐class people tend to be more authoritarian – a view that can be traced back to the early research on the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel‐Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950 ). Recent research providing evidence in favour of this view is reported by Carvacho et al . ( 2013 ). Using a combination of cross‐sectional surveys and longitudinal studies conducted in Europe and Chile, these authors focused on the role of ideological attitudes, in the shape of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1998 ) and social dominance orientation (SDO; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999 ), as mediators of the relation between social class and prejudice. To test their predictions, the researchers analysed four public opinion datasets: one based on eight representative samples in Germany; a second based on representative samples from four European countries (France, Germany, Great Britain, and the Netherlands); a third based on longitudinal research in Germany; and a fourth based on longitudinal research in Chile. Consistent with previous research, the researchers found that income and education, the two indices of social class that they used, predicted higher scores on a range of measures of prejudice, such that lower income and education were associated with greater prejudice – although education proved to be a more consistently significant predictor of prejudice than income did. RWA and SDO were negatively associated with income and education, such that higher scores on income and education predicted lower scores on RWA and SDO. Finally, there was also evidence consistent with the mediation hypothesis: The associations between income and education, on the one hand, and measures of prejudice, on the other, were often (but not always) mediated by SDO and (more consistently) RWA. Carvacho and colleagues concluded that ‘the working class seems to develop and reproduce an ideological configuration that is generally well suited for legitimating the social system’ (p. 283).

Indeed, a theme that emerges from research on social class and attitudes is that ideological factors have a powerful influence on attitudes. The neoliberal ideology that has dominated political discourse in most Western, industrialized societies in the past three decades has influenced attitudes to such an extent that even supporters of left‐of‐centre political parties, such as the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, regard poverty as arising from individual factors and tend to hold negative beliefs about the level of welfare benefits for the unemployed. Such attitudes are shared to a perhaps surprising extent by working‐class people (Clery et al ., 2013 ) and, as we have seen, the research by Carvacho et al . ( 2013 ) suggests that working‐class people endorse ideologies that endorse and preserve a social system that materially disadvantages them.

The notion that people who are disadvantaged by a social system are especially likely to support it is known as the ‘system justification hypothesis’, which holds that ‘people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it’ (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003 , p. 13). The rationale for this prediction derives in part from cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957 ), the idea being that it is psychologically inconsistent to experience oppression but not to protest against the system that causes it. One way to reduce the resulting dissonance is to support the system even more strongly, in the same way that those who have to go through an unpleasant initiation rite in order to join a group or organization become more strongly committed to it.

Two large‐scale studies of survey data (Brandt, 2013 ; Caricati, 2017 ) have cast considerable doubt on the validity of this hypothesis, showing that any tendency for people who are at the bottom of a social system to be more likely to support the system than are their advantaged counterparts is, at best, far from robust. Moreover, it has been argued that there is in any case a basic theoretical inconsistency between system justification theory and cognitive dissonance theory (Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, 2016 ). However, the fact that working‐class people may not be more supportive of the capitalist system than their middle‐ and upper‐class counterparts does not mean that they do not support the system. Thus, the importance of Carvacho et al .'s ( 2013 ) findings is not necessarily undermined by the results reported by Brandt ( 2013 ) and Caricati ( 2017 ). Being willing to legitimate the system is not the same thing as having a stronger tendency to do this than people who derive greater advantages from the system.

The finding that there is an association between social class and prejudice has also been explained in terms of economic threat. The idea here is that members of ethnic minorities and immigrants also tend to be low in social status and are therefore more likely to be competing with working‐class people than with middle‐class people for jobs, housing, and other services. A strong way to test the economic threat explanation would be to assess whether higher‐class people are prejudiced when confronted with immigrants who are highly educated and likely to be competing with them for access to employment and housing. Such a test was conducted by Kuppens, Spears, Manstead, and Tausch ( 2018 ). These researchers examined whether more highly educated participants would express negative attitudes towards highly educated immigrants, especially when threat to the respondents’ own jobs was made salient, either by drawing attention to the negative economic outlook or by subtly implying that the respondents’ own qualifications might be insufficient in the current job market. Consistent with the economic threat hypothesis, a series of experimental studies with student participants in different European countries showed that attitudes to immigrants were most negative when the immigrants also had a university education.

The same researchers also combined US census data with American National Election Study survey data to examine whether symbolic racism was higher in areas where there was a higher number of Blacks with a similar education to that of the White participants. In areas where Blacks were on average less educated, a higher number Blacks was associated with more symbolic racism among Whites who had less education, but in areas where Blacks were on average highly educated, a higher number of Blacks was associated with more symbolic racism on the part of highly educated White people. Again, these findings are consistent with the view that prejudice arises from economic threat.

Research reported by Jetten, Mols, Healy, and Spears ( 2017 ) is also relevant to this issue. These authors examined how economic instability affects low‐SES and high‐SES people. Unsurprisingly, they found that collective angst was higher among low‐SES participants. However, they also found that high‐SES participants expressed anxiety when they were presented with information suggesting that there was high economic instability, that is, that the ‘economic bubble’ might be about to burst. Moreover, they were more likely to oppose immigration when economic instability was said to be high, rather than low. These results reflect the fact that high‐SES people have a lot to lose in times of economic crisis, and that this ‘fear of falling’ is associated with opposition to immigration.

Together, these results provide good support for an explanation of the association between social class and prejudice in terms of differential threat to the group (see also Brandt & Henry, 2012 ; Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017 ). Ethnic minorities and immigrants typically pose most threat to the economic well‐being of working‐class people who have low educational qualifications, and this provides the basis for the observation that working‐class people are more likely to be prejudiced. The fact that higher‐educated and high‐SES people express negative views towards ethnic minorities and immigrants when their economic well‐being is threatened shows that it is perceived threat to one's group's interests that underpins this prejudice. It is also worth noting that the perception of threat to a group's economic interests is likely to be greater during times of economic recession.

Emotion and prosocial behaviour

A strong theme emerging from research investigating the relation between social class and emotion is that lower‐class individuals score more highly on measures of empathy. The rationale for expecting such a link is that because lower‐class individuals are more inclined to explain events in terms of external factors, they should be more sensitive to the ways in which external events shape the emotions of others, and therefore better at judging other people's emotions. A complementary rationale is that the tendency for lower social class individuals to be more socially engaged and to have more interdependent social relationships should result in greater awareness of the emotions experienced by others. This reasoning was tested in three studies reported by Kraus, Côté, and Keltner ( 2010 ).

In the first of these studies, the authors examined the relation between educational attainment (a proxy for social class) and scores on the emotion recognition subscale of the Mayer‐Salovey‐Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002 ). High‐school‐educated participants attained a higher score than did their college‐educated counterparts. In a second study, pairs of participants took part in a hypothetical job interview in which an experimenter asked each of them a set of standard questions. This interaction provided the basis for the measure of empathic accuracy, in that each participant was asked to rate both their own emotions and their partner's emotions during the interview. Subjective social class was again related to empathic accuracy, with lower‐class participants achieving a higher score. Moreover, lower‐class participants were more inclined to explain decisions they made in terms of situational rather than dispositional factors, and the relation between subjective social class and empathy was found to be mediated by this tendency to explain decisions in terms of situational factors. The researchers conducted a third study in which they manipulated subjective social class. This time they assessed empathic accuracy using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (Baron‐Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001 ). Participants who were temporarily induced to experience lower social class were better at recognizing emotions from the subtle cues available from the eye region of the face.

These findings are compatible with the view that lower social class individuals are more sensitive to contextual variation and more inclined to explain events in situational terms. However, some aspects of the results are quite surprising. For example, there seems to be no compelling reason to predict that greater sensitivity to contextual variation would be helpful in judging static facial expressions, which were the stimuli in Studies 1 and 3 of Kraus et al .'s ( 2010 ) research. Thus, the relation between social class and emotion recognition in these studies would seem to depend on the notion that the greater interdependence that is characteristic of lower‐class social environments fosters greater experience with, and therefore knowledge of, the relation between facial movement and subjective emotion, although it still seems surprising that a temporary induction of lower subjective social class, as used in Study 3, should elicit the same effect as extensive real‐life experience of inhabiting lower‐class environments.

If lower‐class individuals are more empathic than their higher‐class counterparts, and are therefore better at recognizing the distress or need of others, this is likely to influence their behaviour in settings where people are distressed and/or in need. This, indeed, is what the evidence suggests. In a series of four studies, Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, and Keltner ( 2010 ) found a consistent tendency for higher‐class individuals to be less inclined to help others than were their lower‐class counterparts. In Study 1, participants low in subjective social class made larger allocations in a dictator game (a game where you are free to allocate as much or as little of a resource to another person as you want) played with an anonymous other than did participants high in subjective social class. In Study 2, subjective social class was manipulated by asking participants to compare themselves to people either at the very top or very bottom of the status hierarchy ladder, the idea being that subjective social class should be lower for those making upward comparisons and higher for those making downward comparisons. Prosocial behaviour was measured by asking participants to indicate the percentage of income that people should spend on a variety of goods and services, one of which was charitable donations. Participants who were induced to experience lower subjective social class indicated that a greater percentage of people's annual salary should be spent on charitable donations compared to participants who were induced to experience higher subjective social class. In Study 3, the researchers used a combination of educational attainment and household income to assess social class and used social value orientation (Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten, & Joireman, 1997 ) as a measure of egalitarian values. These two variables were used to predict behaviour in a trust game. Consistent with predictions, lower‐class participants showed greater trust in their anonymous partner than did their higher‐class counterparts, and this relation was mediated by egalitarian values. In their final study, the researchers manipulated compassion by asking participants in the compassion condition to view a 46‐s video about child poverty. Higher‐ and lower‐class participants were then given the chance to help someone in need. The researchers predicted that helping would only be moderated by compassion among higher‐class participants, on the grounds that lower‐class participants would already be disposed to help, and the results were consistent with this prediction. Overall, these four studies are consistent in showing that, relative to higher‐class people, lower‐class people are more generous, support charity to a greater extent, are more trusting towards a stranger, and more likely to help a person in distress.

The reliability of this finding has been called into question by Korndörfer, Egloff, and Schmukle ( 2015 ), who found contrary evidence in a series of studies. One way to resolve these apparently discrepant findings is to argue, as Kraus and Callaghan ( 2016 ) did, that the relation between social class and prosocial behaviour is moderated by a number of factors, including whether the context is a public or private one. To test this idea, Kraus and Callaghan ( 2016 ) conducted a series of studies in which they manipulated whether donations made to an anonymous other in a dictator game were made in a private or public context. In the private context, the donor remained anonymous. In the public context, the donor's name and city of residence were announced, along with the donation. Lower‐class participants were more generous in private than in public, whereas the reverse was true for higher‐class participants. Interestingly, higher‐class participants were more likely to expect to feel proud about acting prosocially, and this difference in anticipated pride mediated the effect of social class on the difference between public and private donations.

The fact that lower‐class people have been found to hold more egalitarian values and to be more likely to help regardless of compassion level suggests that it is the greater resources of higher‐class participants that makes them more selfish and therefore less likely to help others. This ‘selfishness’ account of the social class effect on prosocial behaviour is supported by another series of studies reported by Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza‐Denton, and Keltner ( 2012 ), who found that, relative to lower‐class individuals, higher‐class people were more likely to show unethical decision‐making tendencies, to take valued goods from others, to lie in a negotiation, to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize and to endorse unethical behaviour at work. There was also evidence that these unethical tendencies were partly accounted for by more favourable attitudes towards greed among higher‐class people. Later research shows that the relation between social class and unethical behaviour is moderated by whether the behaviour benefits the self or others. Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky ( 2015 ) varied who benefited from unethical behaviour and showed that the previously reported tendency for higher‐class people to make more unethical decisions was only observed when the outcome was beneficial to the self. These findings are consistent with the view that the greater resources enjoyed by higher‐class individuals result in a stronger focus on the self and a reduced concern for the welfare of others.

Interestingly, this stronger self‐focus and lesser concern for others’ welfare on the part of higher‐class people are more evident in contexts characterized by high economic inequality. This was shown by Côté, House, and Willer ( 2015 ), who analysed results from a nationally representative US survey and showed that higher‐income respondents were only less generous in the offers they made to an anonymous other in a dictator game than their lower‐income counterparts in areas that were high in economic inequality, as reflected in the Gini coefficient. Indeed, in low inequality areas, there was evidence that higher‐income respondents were more generous than their lower‐income counterparts. To test the causality of this differential association between income and generosity in high and low inequality areas, the authors conducted an experiment in which participants were led to believe that their home state was characterized by high or low degree of economic inequality and then played a dictator game with an anonymous other. High‐income participants were less generous than their low‐income counterparts in the high inequality condition but not in the low inequality condition.

A possible issue with Côté et al . ( 2015 ) research in the current context is that it focuses on income rather than class. Although these variables are clearly connected, class is generally thought to be indexed by more than income. The research nevertheless suggests that economic inequality plays a key role in shaping the attitudes and behaviours of higher‐class individuals. There are at least three (not mutually exclusive) explanations for this influence of inequality. One is that inequality increases the sense of entitlement in higher‐class people, because they engage more often in downward social comparisons. Another is that higher‐class people may be more concerned about losing their privileged position in society if they perceive a large gap between the rich and the poor. A final explanation is that higher‐class people may be more highly motivated to justify their privileged position in society when the gap between rich and poor is a large one. Whichever of these explanations is correct – and they may all be to some extent – the fact that prosocial behaviour on the part of higher‐class individuals decreases under conditions of high economic inequality is important, given that the United States is one of the most economically unequal societies in the industrialized world. In unequal societies, then, it seems safe to conclude that on average, higher‐class individuals are less likely than their lower‐class counterparts to behave prosocially, especially where the prosocial behaviour is not public in nature.

Universities and workplaces

The selective nature of higher education (HE), involving economic and/or qualification requirements to gain entry, makes a university a high‐status context. Working‐class people seeking to attain university‐level qualifications are therefore faced with working in an environment in which they may feel out of place. Highly selective universities such as Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom, or Harvard, Stanford, and Yale in the United States, are especially likely to appear to be high in status and therefore out of reach. Indeed, the proportion of working‐class students at Oxford and Cambridge is strikingly low. According to the UK's Higher Education Statistics Agency , the percentage of students at Oxford and Cambridge who were from routine/manual occupational backgrounds was 11.5 and 12.6, respectively, in the academic year 2008/9. This compares with an ONS figure of 37% of all people aged between 16 and 63 in the United Kingdom being classified with such backgrounds. The figures for Oxford and Cambridge are extreme, but they illustrate a more general phenomenon, both in the United Kingdom and internationally: students at elite, research‐led universities are more likely to come from middle‐ and upper‐class backgrounds than from working‐class backgrounds (Jerrim, 2013 ).

The reasons for the very low representation of working‐class students at these elite institutions are complex (Chowdry, Crawford, Dearden, Goodman, & Vignoles, 2013 ), but at least one factor is that many working‐class students do not consider applying because they do not see themselves as feeling at home there. They see a mismatch between the identity conferred by their social backgrounds and the identity they associate with being a student at an elite university. This is evident from ethnographic research. For example, Reay, Crozier, and Clayton ( 2010 ) interviewed students from working‐class backgrounds who were attending one of four HE institutions, including an elite university (named Southern in the report). A student at Southern said this about her mother's reaction to her attending this elite university: ‘I don't think my mother really approves of me going to Southern. It's not what her daughter should be doing so I don't really mention it when I go home. It's kind of uncomfortable to talk about it’ (p. 116). In a separate paper, Reay, Crozier, and Clayton ( 2009 ) focus on the nine students attending Southern, examining whether these students felt like ‘fish out of water’. Indeed, there was evidence of difficulty in adjusting to the new environment, both socially and academically. One student said, ‘I wasn't keen on Southern as a place and all my preconceptions were “Oh, it's full of posh boarding school types”. And it was all true … it was a bit of a culture shock’ (p. 1111), while another said, ‘If you were the best at your secondary school … you're certainly not going to be the best here’ (p. 1112). A similar picture emerges from research in Canada by Lehmann ( 2009 , 2013 ), who interviewed working‐class students attending a research‐intensive university, and found that the students experienced uncomfortable conflicts between their new identities as university students and the ties they had with family members and non‐student friends.

Such is the reputation of elite, research‐intensive universities that working‐class high‐school students are unlikely to imagine themselves attending such institutions, even if they are academically able. Perceptions of these universities as elitist are likely to deter such students from applying. Evidence of this deterrence comes from research conducted by Nieuwenhuis, Easterbrook, and Manstead ( 2018 ). They report two studies in which 16‐ to 18‐year‐old secondary school students in the United Kingdom were asked about the universities they intended to apply to. The studies were designed to test the theoretical model shown in Figure  2 , which was influenced by prior work on the role of identity compatibility conducted by Jetten, Iyer, Tsivrikos, and Young ( 2008 ). According to the model in Figure  2 , SES influences university choice partly through its impact on perceived identity compatibility and anticipated acceptance at low‐ and high‐status universities.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is BJSO-57-267-g002.jpg

Theoretical model of the way in which the socioeconomic status ( SES ) influences application to high‐status universities as a result of social identity factors and academic achievement, as proposed by Nieuwenhuis et al . ( 2018 ).

In the first study conducted by Nieuwenhuis and colleagues, students who were 6 months away from making their university applications responded to questions about their perceptions of two universities, one a research‐intensive, selective university (SU), the other a less selective university (LSU). Both universities were located in the same geographical region, not far from the schools where the participants were recruited. In the second study, students who were 6 weeks away from making their university applications responded to similar questions, but this time about three universities in the region, two of which were the same as those in Study 1, while the third was a highly selective institution (HSU). The questions put to respondents measured their perceptions of identity compatibility (e.g., consistency between family background and decision to go to university) and anticipated acceptance (e.g., anticipated identification with students at the university in question). Measures of parental education and academic achievement in previous examinations were taken, as well as the three universities to which they would most like to apply, which were scored in accordance with a published national league table.

In both studies, it was found that relatively disadvantaged students (whose parents had low levels of educational attainment) scored lower on identity compatibility and that low scores on identity compatibility were associated with lower anticipated acceptance at the SU (Study 1) or at the HSU (Study 2). These anticipated acceptance scores, in turn, predicted the type of university to which participants wanted to apply, with those who anticipated feeling accepted at more selective universities being more likely to apply to higher status universities. All of these relations were significant while controlling for academic achievement. Together, the results of these studies show that perceptions of acceptance at different types of university are associated with HE choices independently of students’ academic ability. This helps to explain why highly able students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to settle for less prestigious universities.

Alternatively, working‐class students may opt out of HE altogether. Hutchings and Archer ( 2001 ) interviewed young working‐class people who were not participating in HE and found that a key reason for their non‐participation was a perception that the kinds of HE institutions that were realistically available to them were second‐rate: ‘[O]ur respondents constructed two very different pictures of HE. One was of Oxbridge and campus universities, pleasant environments in which middle‐class students … can look forward to achieving prestigious degrees and careers. The second construction was of rather unattractive buildings in which “skint” working‐class students … have to work hard under considerable pressure, combining study with a job and having little time for social life. This second picture was the sort of HE that our respondents generally talked about as available to them, and they saw it as inferior to ‘real’ HE’ (p. 87).

Despite the deterrent effect of perceived identity incompatibility and lack of psychological fit, some working‐class students do gain entry to high‐status universities. Once there, they are confronted with the same issues of fit. Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, and Covarrubias ( 2012 ) describe this as ‘cultural mismatch’, arguing that the interdependent norms that characterize the working‐class backgrounds of most first‐generation college students in the United States do not match the middle‐class independent norms that prevail in universities offering 4‐year degrees and that this mismatch leads to greater discomfort and poorer academic performance. Their cultural mismatch model is summarized in Figure  3 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is BJSO-57-267-g003.jpg

Model of cultural mismatch proposed by Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, et al . ( 2012 ). The mismatch is between first‐generation college students’ norms, which are more interdependent than those of continuing‐generation students, and the norms of independence that prevail in universities. From Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, et al . ( 2012 ), published by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission.

To test this model, Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, et al . ( 2012 ) surveyed university administrators at the top 50 national universities and the top 25 liberal arts colleges. The majority of the 261 respondents were deans. They were asked to respond to items expressing interdependent (e.g., learn to work together with others) or independent (e.g., learn to express oneself) norms, selecting those that characterized their institution's culture or choosing statements reflecting what was more often emphasized by the institution. More than 70% of the respondents chose items reflecting a greater emphasis on independence than on interdependence. Similar results were found in a follow‐up study involving 50 administrators at second‐tier universities and liberal arts colleges, showing that this stronger focus on independence was not only true of elite institutions. Moreover, a longitudinal study of first‐generation students found that this focus on independence did not match the students’ interdependent motives for going to college, in that first‐generation students selected fewer independent motives (e.g., become an independent thinker) and twice as many interdependent motives (e.g., give back to the community), compared to their continuing‐generation counterparts, and that this greater focus on interdependent motives was associated with lower grades in the first 2 years of study, even after controlling for race and SAT scores.

As Stephens and her colleagues have shown elsewhere (e.g., Stephens, Brannon, Markus, & Nelson, 2015 ), there are steps that can be taken to reduce working‐class students’ perception that they do not fit with their university environment. These authors argue that ‘a key goal of interventions should be to fortify and to elaborate school‐relevant selves – the understanding that getting a college degree is central to “who I am”, “who I hope to become”, and “the future I envision for myself”’ (p. 3). Among the interventions that they advocate as ways of creating a more inclusive culture at university are: providing working‐class role models; diversifying the way in which university experience is represented, so that university culture also provides ways of achieving interdependent goals that may be more compatible with working‐class students’ values; and ensuring that working‐class students have a voice, for example, by providing forums in which they can express shared interests and concerns.

Although there is a less well‐developed line of work on the ways in which high‐status places of work affect the aspirations and behaviours of working‐class employees, there is good reason to assume that the effects and processes identified in research on universities as places to study generalize to prestigious employment organizations as places to work (Côté, 2011 ). To the extent that many workplaces are dominated by middle‐class values and practices, working‐class employees are likely to feel out of place (Ridgway & Fisk, 2012 ). This applies both to gaining entry to the workplace, by negotiating the application and selection process (Rivera, 2012 ), and (if successful) to the daily interactions between employees in the workplace. In the view of Stephens, Fryberg, and Markus ( 2012 ), many workplaces are characterized by cultures of expressive independence, where working‐class employees are less likely to feel at home. As Stephens et al . ( 2014 , p. 626) argue, ‘This mismatch between working‐class employees and their middle‐class colleagues and institutions could also reduce employees’ job security and satisfaction, continuing the cycle of disadvantage for working‐class employees.’

Towards an integrative model

The work reviewed here provides the basis for an integrative model of how social class affects thoughts, feelings, and behaviour. The model is shown in Figure  4 and builds on the work of others, especially that of Nicole Stephens and colleagues and that of Michael Kraus and colleagues. At the base of the model are differences in the material circumstances of working‐class and middle‐class people. These differences in income and wealth are associated with differences in social capital, in the form of friendship networks, and cultural capital, in the form of tacit knowledge about how systems work, that have a profound effect on the ways in which individuals who grow up in these different contexts construe themselves and their social environments. For example, if you have family members or friends who have university degrees and/or professional qualifications, you are more likely to entertain these as possible futures than if you do not have these networks; and if through these networks you have been exposed to libraries, museums, interviews, and so on, you are more likely to know how these cultural institutions work, less likely to be intimidated by them, and more likely to make use of them. In sum, a middle‐class upbringing is more likely to promote the perception that the environment is one full of challenges that can be met rather than threats that need to be avoided. These differences in self‐construal and models of interpersonal relations translate into differences in social emotions and behaviours that are noticeable to self and others, creating the opportunity for people to rank themselves and others, and for differences in norms and values to emerge. To the extent that high‐status institutions in society, such as elite universities and prestigious employers, are characterized by norms and values that are different from those that are familiar to working‐class people, the latter will feel uncomfortable in such institutions and will perform below their true potential.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is BJSO-57-267-g004.jpg

Integrative model of how differences in material conditions generate social class differences and differences in social cognition, emotion, and behaviour.

Also depicted in Figure  4 is the way in which ideology moderates the relations between social class, on the one hand, and social cognition and social behaviour, on the other, and the ways in which economic inequality and threat moderate the relations between psychological dispositions and social behaviour. Although there is good evidence for many of the proposed relations depicted in the model, there is relatively little hard evidence concerning the moderating roles of ideology and economic inequality and threat. There is evidence that economic threat is associated with prejudice (e.g., Billiet, Meuleman, & De Witte, 2014 ), and that this also applies to higher‐educated people (e.g., Kuppens et al ., 2018 ). There is also evidence that high economic inequality increases the tendency for high‐income people to be less generous to others (Côté et al ., 2015 ), but these are influences that need further examination. Likewise, there is evidence of the moderating impact of ideology on the translation from social class to social cognition and behaviour (e.g., Wiederkehr, Bonnot, Krauth‐Gruber, & Darnon, 2015 ), but this, too, is an influence that merits additional investigation. A further point worth making is that much of the work on which this integrative model is based was conducted in the United States, which raises the question of the extent to which it is applicable to other contexts. There are some differences between the United States and other Western, industrialized countries that are relevant to the model. For example, the United States is more economically unequal than virtually every other industrialized country (Piketty & Saez, 2014 ). At the same time, the perceived degree of social mobility is greater in the United States than in other countries (Isaacs, 2008 ) – although the reality is that social mobility is lower in the United States (and indeed in the United Kingdom; see Social Mobility Commission, 2017 ) than in many other industrialized counties (Isaacs, 2008 ). These differences in economic inequality and ideology mean that the moderating roles played by these factors may vary from one country to another. For example, there is evidence that those in Europe who are poor or on the left of the political spectrum are more concerned with and unhappy about inequality than are their American counterparts, which may be related to different beliefs about social mobility (Alesina, Di Tella, & MacCulloch, 2004 ). Although there seems to be no good reason to question the generalizability of the other relations posited in the model, there is an obvious need to expand the research base on which the model is founded.

Prospects for social change

The cycle of disadvantage that starts with poor material conditions and ends with lower chances of entering and succeeding in the very contexts (universities and high‐status workplaces) that could increase social mobility is not going to be changed in the absence of substantial pressure for social change. It is therefore interesting that when people are asked about social inequality, they generally say that they are in favour of greater equality.

Norton and Ariely ( 2011 ) asked a nationally representative sample of more than 5,500 Americans to estimate the (then) current wealth distribution in the United States and also to express their preferences for how wealth should be distributed. The key findings from this research were (1) that respondents greatly underestimated the degree of wealth inequality in the United States, believing that the wealthiest 20% of the population owned 59% of the wealth, where the actual figure is 84% and (2) that their preferred distribution of wealth among citizens was closer to equality than even their own incorrect estimations of the distribution (e.g., they expressed a preference that the top 20% should own 32% of the nation's wealth). This also held for wealthy respondents and Republican voters – albeit to a lesser extent than their poorer and Democrat counterparts. Similar results for Australian respondents were reported by Norton, Neal, Govan, Ariely, and Holland ( 2014 ).

These studies have been criticized on the grounds that the ‘quintile’ methodology they use provides respondents with an anchor (20%) from which they adjust upwards or downwards. However, when Eriksson and Simpson ( 2012 ) used a different methodology, they found that although American respondents’ preferences for wealth distribution were more unequal than those found using the quintile methodology, they were still much more egalitarian than the actual distribution. Similar conclusions were reached in a study of American adolescents conducted by Flanagan and Kornbluh ( 2017 ), where participants expressed a strong preference for a much more egalitarian society than the degree of stratification they perceived to exist in the United States. It is also worth noting that similar findings have been reported in a study of preferences for income inequality (Kiatpongsan & Norton, 2014 ), where it was found that American respondents underestimated the actual difference in income between CEOs and unskilled workers (354:1), and that their preferences regarding this difference (7:1) were more egalitarian than were their estimates (30:1).

Given the evidence that citizens consistently express a preference for less wealth and income inequality than what currently prevails in many societies, it is worth considering why there is not greater support for redistributive policies. It is known that one factor that weakens support for such policies is a belief in social mobility. American participants have been found to overestimate the degree of social mobility in the United States (Davidai & Gilovich, 2015 ; Kraus & Tan, 2015 ), and Shariff, Wiwad, and Aknin ( 2016 ) have shown, using a combination of survey and experimental methods, that higher perceived mobility leads to greater acceptance of income inequality. These authors also showed that the effect of their manipulation of perceived income mobility on tolerance for inequality was mediated by two factors: the expectation that respondents’ children would be upwardly mobile; and perceptions of the degree to which someone's economic standing was the result of effort, rather than luck. This suggests that people's attitudes to income inequality – and therefore their support for steps to reduce it – are shaped by their perceptions that (1) higher incomes are possible to achieve, at least for their children, and (2) when these higher incomes are achieved, they are deserved. It follows that any intervention that reduces the tendency to overestimate income mobility should increase support for redistributive policies.

Another factor that helps to account for lack of support for redistribution is people's perceptions of their own social standing or rank. Brown‐Iannuzzi, Lundberg, Kay, and Payne ( 2015 ) have shown that subjective status is correlated with support for redistributive policies, and that experimentally altering subjective status leads to changes in such support. In both cases, lower subjective status was associated with stronger support for redistribution, even when actual resources and self‐interest were held constant. So one's perception of one's own relative social rank influences support for redistribution. This points to the importance of social comparisons and suggests that those who compare themselves with others who have a lower social standing are less likely to be supportive of redistribution.

Evidence that people's attitudes to inequality and to policies that would reduce it can be influenced by quite straightforward interventions comes from research reported by McCall, Burk, Laperrière, and Richeson ( 2017 ). In three studies, these researchers show that exposing American participants to information about the rising economic inequality, compared to control information, led to stronger perceptions that economic success is due to structural factors rather than individual effort. In the largest of the three studies, involving a representative sample of American adults, it was also found that information about rising inequality led to greater endorsement of policies that could be implemented by government and by business to reduce inequality. This research shows that, under the right conditions, even those living in a society that is traditionally opposed to government intervention would support government policies to reduce inequality.

Also relevant to the likelihood of people taking social action on this issue is how descriptions of inequality are framed. Bruckmüller, Reese, and Martiny ( 2017 ) have shown that relatively subtle variations in such framing, such as whether an advantaged group is described as having more or a disadvantaged group is described as having less, influence perceptions of the legitimacy of these differences; larger differences between groups were evaluated as less legitimate when the disadvantaged group was described as having less. Perceptions of the illegitimacy of inequality in group outcomes are likely to evoke group‐based anger, which in turn is known to be one of the predictors of collective action (Van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004 ).

There is solid evidence that the material circumstances in which people develop and live their lives have a profound influence on the ways in which they construe themselves and their social environments. The resulting differences in the ways that working‐class and middle‐ and upper‐class people think and act serve to reinforce these influences of social class background, making it harder for working‐class individuals to benefit from the kinds of educational and employment opportunities that would increase social mobility and thereby improve their material circumstances. At a time when economic inequality is increasing in many countries, this lack of mobility puts a strain on social cohesion. Most people believe that economic inequality is undesirable and, when presented with the evidence of growing inequality, say that they would support government policies designed to reduce it. Given that the social class differences reviewed here have their origins in economic inequality, it follows that redistributive (or ‘predistributive’; Taylor‐Gooby, 2013 ) policies are urgently needed to create greater equality.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Colin Foad, Matt Easterbrook, Russell Spears and John Drury for their helpful comments on a previous version of this paper.

  • Adler, N. E. , Epel, E. S. , Castellazzo, G. , & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women . Health Psychology , 19 , 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel‐Brunswik, E. , Levinson, D. J. , & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality . New York, NY: Harper & Row. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Alesina, A. , Di Tella, R. , & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics , 88 , 2009–2042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2003.07.006 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality” . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 30 , 47–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60382-2 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Aries, E. , & Seider, M. (2007). The role of social class in the formation of identity: A study of public and elite private college students . Journal of Social Psychology , 147 , 137–157. https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.147.2.137-157 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baron‐Cohen, S. , Wheelwright, S. , Hill, J. , Raste, Y. , & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high‐functioning autism . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines , 42 , 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00715 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Becker, J. C. , Kraus, M. W. , & Rheinschmidt‐Same, M. (2017). Cultural expressions of social class and their implications for group‐related beliefs and behaviors . Journal of Social Issues , 73 , 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12209 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Billiet, J. , Meuleman, B. , & De Witte, H. (2014). The relationship between ethnic threat and economic insecurity in times of economic crisis: Analysis of European Social Survey data . Migration Studies , 2 , 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnu023 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bourdieu, P. , & Passeron, J.‐C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brandt, M. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large‐scale test of the status‐legitimacy hypothesis . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 104 , 765–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031751 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brandt, M. J. , & Henry, P. J. (2012). Psychological defensiveness as a mechanism explaining the relationship between low socioeconomic status and religiosity . International Journal for the Psychology of Religion , 22 , 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.646565 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brandt, M. J. , & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 112 ( 1 ), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brown‐Iannuzzi, J. L. , Lundberg, K. B. , Kay, A. C. , & Payne, B. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences . Psychological Science , 26 , 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614553947 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bruckmüller, S. , Reese, G. , & Martiny, S. E. (2017). Is higher inequality less legitimate? Depends on how you frame it! British Journal of Social Psychology , 56 , 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12202 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Buck, N. , & McFall, S. (2012). Understanding society: Design overview . Longitudinal and Life Course Studies , 3 , 5–17. https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v3i1.159 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caricati, L. (2017). Testing the status‐legitimacy hypothesis: A multilevel modeling approach to the perception of legitimacy in income distribution in 36 nations . Journal of Social Psychology , 157 , 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1242472 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carvacho, H. , Zick, A. , Haye, A. , González, R. , Manzi, J. , Kocik, C. , & Bertl, M. (2013). On the relation between social class and prejudice: The roles of education, income, and ideological attitudes . European Journal of Social Psychology , 43 , 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1961 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chowdry, H. , Crawford, C. , Dearden, L. , Goodman, A. , & Vignoles, A. (2013). Widening participation in higher education: Analysis using linked administrative data . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A , 176 , 431–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2012.01043.x [ Google Scholar ]
  • Clery, E. , Lee, L. , & Kunz, S. (2013). Public attitudes to poverty and welfare, 1983–2011: Analysis using British attitudes data . London, UK: NatCen Social Research. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cohen, S. , Alper, C. M. , Doyle, W. J. , Adler, N. , Treanor, J. J. , & Turner, R. B. (2008). Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold . Health Psychology , 27 , 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Côté, S. (2011). How social class shapes thoughts and actions in organizations . Research in Organizational Behavior , 31 , 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.004 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Côté, S. , House, J. , & Willer, R. (2015). High economic inequality leads higher‐income individuals to be less generous . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112 , 15838–15843. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511536112 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Darnon, C. , Wiederkehr, V. , Dompnier, B. , & Martinot, D. (2018). ‘Where there is a will, there is a way’: Belief in school meritocracy and the social‐class achievement gap . British Journal of Social Psychology , 57 , 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12214 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Davidai, S. , & Gilovich, T. (2015). Building a more mobile America – One income quintile at a time . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 10 , 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614562005 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Department for Communities and Local Government . (2012). Citizenship survey . Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919133219/http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/research/citizenshipsurvey/
  • Dubois, D. , Rucker, D. D. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 108 , 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000008 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Easterbrook, M. , Kuppens, T. , & Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). Socioeconomic status and the structure of the self‐concept . Unpublished manuscript, University of Sussex. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Equality Trust . (2017). How has inequality changed? Retrieved from https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed
  • Eriksson, K. , & Simpson, B. (2012). What do Americans know about inequality? It depends on how you ask them . Judgment and Decision Making , 7 , 741–745. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Evans, G. , & Mellon, J. (2016). Social class: Identity, awareness and political attitudes: Why are we still working class? British Social Attitudes , 33 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Flanagan, C. A. , & Kornbluh, M. (2017). How unequal is the United States? Adolescents’ images of social stratification . Child Development . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12954 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Goldthorpe, J. H. , & Lockwood, D. (1963). Affluence and the British class structure . Sociological Review , 11 , 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1963.tb01230.x [ Google Scholar ]
  • Higher Education Statistics Agency . Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/overviews?keyword=All&year=13
  • Hutchings, M. , & Archer, L. (2001). ‘Higher than Einstein’: Constructions of going to university among working‐class non‐participants . Research Papers in Education , 16 , 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520010011879 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Isaacs, J. B. (2008). International comparisons of social mobility . Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jerrim, J. (2013). Family background and access to high ‘status’ universities . London, UK: The Sutton Trust. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jetten, J. , Iyer, A. , Tsivrikos, D. , & Young, B. M. (2008). When is individual mobility costly? The role of economic and social identity factors . European Journal of Social Psychology , 38 , 866–879. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.471 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jetten, J. , Mols, F. , Healy, N. , & Spears, R. (2017). “Fear of falling”: Economic instability enhances collective angst among societies’ wealthy class . Journal of Social Issues , 73 , 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12204 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jost, J. T. , Pelham, B. W. , Sheldon, O. , & Sullivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged . European Journal of Social Psychology , 33 , 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.127 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kiatpongsan, S. , & Norton, M. I. (2014). How much (more) should CEOs make? A universal desire for more equal pay . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 9 , 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614549773 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Korndörfer, M. , Egloff, B. , & Schmukle, S. C. (2015). A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior . PLoS One , 10 ( 7 ), e0133193 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133193 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , & Callaghan, N. (2016). Social class and prosocial behavior: The moderating role of public versus private contexts . Social Psychological and Personality Science , 7 , 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616659120 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , Côté, S. , & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy . Psychological Science , 21 , 1716–1723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610387613 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin‐slicing approach . Psychological Science , 20 , 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , Park, J. W. , & Tan, J. J. X. (2017). Signs of social class: The experience of economic inequality in everyday life . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 12 , 422–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616673192 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , Piff, P. K. , & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, the sense of control, and social explanation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 97 , 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , Piff, P. K. , & Keltner, D. (2011). Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 20 , 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414654 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , Piff, P. K. , Mendoza‐Denton, R. , Rheinschmidt, M. L. , & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor . Psychological Review , 119 , 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028756 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraus, M. W. , & Tan, J. J. (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 58 , 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.01.005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuppens, T. , Spears, R. , Manstead, A. S. R. , & Tausch, N. (2018). Education and lower prejudice towards immigrants and ethnic minorities: A question of increased enlightenment or reduced economic threat? Unpublished manuscript, University of Groningen. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lehmann, W. (2009). Becoming middle class: How working‐class university students draw and transgress moral class boundaries . Sociology , 43 , 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509105412 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lehmann, W. (2013). Habitus transformation and hidden injuries: Successful working‐class university students . Sociology of Education , 87 ( 1 ), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040713498777 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lipset, S. M. (1959). Democracy and working‐class authoritarianism . American Sociological Review , 24 , 482–501. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089536 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mayer, J. D. , Salovey, P. , & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer‐Salovey‐Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user's manual . Toronto, ON: Multi‐Health Systems. [ Google Scholar ]
  • McCall, L. , Burk, D. , Laperrière, M. , & Richeson, J. A. (2017). Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114 , 9593–9598. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706253114 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nieuwenhuis, M. , Easterbrook, M. , & Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). Accounting for unequal access to higher education: The role of social identity factors . Unpublished manuscript, University of Sussex. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Norton, M. I. , & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America – One wealth quintile at a time . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 6 , 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393524 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Norton, M. I. , Neal, D. T. , Govan, C. L. , Ariely, D. , & Holland, E. (2014). The not‐so‐common wealth of Australia: Evidence for a cross‐cultural desire for a more equal distribution of wealth . Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy , 14 , 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12058 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Office for National Statistics . (2014). Wealth in Great Britain Wave 4: 2012 to 2014 . Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/compendium/wealthingreatbritainwave4/2012to2014
  • Owuamalam, C. K. , Rubin, M. , & Spears, R. (2016). The system justification conundrum: Re‐examining the cognitive dissonance basis for system justification . Frontiers in Psychology , 7 , 1889 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01889 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Piff, P. K. , Kraus, M. W. , Côté, S. , Cheng, B. , & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 99 , 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020092 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Piff, P. K. , Stancato, D. , Côté, S. , Mendoza‐Denton, R. , & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109 , 4086–4091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118373109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Piketty, T. , & Saez, E. (2014). Inequality in the long run . Science , 344 , 838–843. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251936 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Reay, D. , Crozier, G. , & Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in paradise’? Working‐class students in elite universities Sociology , 43 , 1103–1121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509345700 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Reay, D. , Crozier, G. , & Clayton, J. (2010). ‘Fitting in’ or ‘standing out’: Working‐class students in UK higher education . British Educational Research Journal , 36 ( 1 ), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902878925 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ridgway, C. L. , & Fisk, S. R. (2012). Class rules, status dynamics, and “gateway” interactions In Fiske S. T. & Markus H. R. (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 131–151). New York, NY: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rivera, L. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms . American Sociological Review , 77 , 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Savage, M. , Devine, F. , Cunningham, N. , Taylor, M. , Li, Y. , Hjellbrekke, J. , … Miles, A. (2013). A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC's Great British class experiment . Sociology , 47 , 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513481128 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shariff, A. F. , Wiwad, D. , & Aknin, L. B. (2016). Income mobility breeds tolerance for income inequality: Cross‐national and experimental evidence . Psychological Science , 11 , 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635596 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sidanius, J. , & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchies and oppression . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Social Mobility Commission . (2017). State of the nation 2017: Social mobility in Great Britain . London, UK: HM Stationery Office; Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662744/State_of_the_Nation_2017_-_Social_Mobility_in_Great_Britain.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stephens, N. M. , Brannon, T. N. , Markus, H. R. , & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in college: Fortifying school‐relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher education . Social Issues and Policy Review , 9 ( 1 ), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12008 [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stephens, N. M. , Fryberg, S. A. , & Markus, H. R. (2012). It's your choice: How the middle‐class model of independence disadvantages working class Americans In Fiske S. T. & Markus H. R. (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 87–106). New York, NY: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stephens, N. M. , Fryberg, S. A. , Markus, H. R. , Johnson, C. , & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first‐generation college students . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 102 , 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027143 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stephens, N. M. , Markus, H. M. , & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality . Annual Review of Psychology , 65 , 611–634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115143 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Taylor‐Gooby, P. (2013). Why do people stigmatise the poor at a time of rapidly increasing inequality, and what can be done about it? The Political Quarterly , 84 ( 1 ), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923x.2013.02435.x [ Google Scholar ]
  • Valentine, G. (2014). Inequality and class prejudice in an age of austerity . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute; Retrieved from http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Brief8-inequality-and-class-prejudice-in-an-age-of-austerity.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Van Lange, P. A. , De Bruin, E. , Otten, W. , & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 , 733 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Van Zomeren, M. , Spears, R. , Fischer, A. H. , & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group‐based anger and group efficacy . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 , 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wiederkehr, V. , Bonnot, V. , Krauth‐Gruber, S. , & Darnon, C. (2015). Belief in school meritocracy as a system‐justifying tool for low status students . Frontiers in Psychology , 6 , 1053 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01053 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Essay Service Examples Sociology Social Class

The Outsiders: the Theme of Social Classes

  • Proper editing and formatting
  • Free revision, title page, and bibliography
  • Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

document

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

reviews

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

The Outsiders: the Theme of Social Classes

Most popular essays

  • Brave New World
  • Social Class

Social status is not always determined by the money that somebody has. Sometimes, it may be...

  • The Importance of Being Earnest

Oscar Wilde was an Irish playwright, poet and essayist who was remembered for his witty epigrams,...

  • An Inspector Calls
  • Animal Farm

In the twentieth century, the topic of class conflict and revolutionary ideas was an important...

The debate over pilot fatigue has been continuously ongoing ever since the start of air traveling...

  • Poverty in America
  • Socioeconomic Status

Poverty is a worldwide epidemic that is changing trends in the country’s economy and affecting the...

  • Cultural Diversity

Many organizations have an impact on on science. Those groups. These groups may additionally be...

Multiple higher-level professionals such as researchers, politicians and scholars have debated...

  • Jane Austen

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of good fortune, must be...

George Bernard Shaw’s, chronicle, Pygmalion, is one of the festinated romantic dramatic comedies...

Join our 150k of happy users

  • Get original paper written according to your instructions
  • Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Social Class – An Introduction to the Concept

Table of Contents

Last Updated on December 13, 2022 by Karl Thompson

Social Class refers to divisions in society based on economic and social status. People in the same social class typically share a similar level of wealth, educational achievement, type of job and income.

Social Class is one of the most important concepts within AS and A Level Sociology because of the relationship between social class background and life chances (or lack of them) and the debate over the extent to which social class background determines an individual’s life chances.

The concept of social class is certainly relevant today – according to the latest 2022 data from YouGov 68% of young people think that their life chances are ‘broadly determined’ by their parents socioeconomic backgrounds…

social class division essay

Many people in the United Kingdom have an idea of what social class is, but Sociologists define the concept in more precise terms.

Below I look at ‘common conceptions’ of social class before moving on to look at two ways of measuring social class – The Registrar General’s Social Class Scale and The New British Class Survey

Common Conceptions of Social Class

Those individuals engaged in manual work, often having low levels of educational achievement. The classic, traditional working class jobs include heavy labouring and factory based work.

Those individuals engaged in non-manual work, often having higher levels of educational achievement. Classic middle class jobs include everything from doctors and lawyers to clerical workers.

The elite class that controls the majority of wealth and power in British society.

This means that 84% of respondents were prepared to identify themselves with a particular social class background, which suggests that these broad ‘class divisions’ have meaning for people.

The Registrar General’s Social Class Scale (1911)

Sociologists use more nuanced categories of social class, than the common sense conceptions above. The way in which sociologists group people into social classes has changed considerably over time, mainly because of the changing occupational structure. To illustrate this just two examples are provided below.

I Professional and managerial

Accountant, doctor

II Intermediate

Teacher, farmer

III Non-manual – skilled occupations

Police officer, sales representative

III Manual – skilled occupations

Electrician, bus driver

IV Semi-skilled manual

Farm worker, postman/woman

V Unskilled manual

Labourer, cleaner

Strengths and Limitations of the Registrar General’s Social Class Scale 

However, even today the majority of occupations fit pretty unambiguously into one of the categories, and six categories broadly organised along educational achievement and income is very easy to manage if we wish to make comparisons, and if we stick to these six simple categories, there does appear to be a historical relationship between these social class groupings and life chances – especially where life expectancy is concerned.

health and social class inequality

The New British Class Survey 

Economic Capital – Measured by a combination of household income, household savings and the value of house owned.

According to this survey, there are now 7 new classes in the United Kingdom…..

Social Class Britain

Strengths and Limitations of the New British Class Survey 

However, because it includes more aspects of class and because it is more subjective, it is simply harder to ‘get your head around’ – the divisions aren’t as clear cut, and it’s more difficult to make comparisons – of which there are few available because this is such a new measurement. Still, these aren’t necessarily weaknesses if that’s the way social class really does manifest itself in reality in contemporary Britain.

Related Posts – Mostly on ‘why class matters’

Three ways in which family life varies by social class

British Class Survey

Further Sources 

Share this:, 2 thoughts on “social class – an introduction to the concept”, leave a reply cancel reply, discover more from revisesociology.

What Is Social Class, and Why Does it Matter?

How Sociologists Define and Study the Concept

smartboy10 / Getty Images

  • Key Concepts
  • Major Sociologists
  • News & Issues
  • Research, Samples, and Statistics
  • Recommended Reading
  • Archaeology
  • Ph.D., Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
  • M.A., Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
  • B.A., Sociology, Pomona College

Class, economic class, socio-economic class, social class. What's the difference? Each refers to how people are sorted into groups—specifically ranked hierarchies —in society. There are, in fact, important differences among them.

Economic Class

Economic class refers specifically to how one ranks relative to others in terms of income and wealth. Simply put, we are sorted into groups by how much money we have. These groups are commonly understood as lower (the poorest), middle, and upper class (the richest). When someone uses the word "class" to refer to how people are stratified in society, they are most often referring to this.

The model of economic class we use today is a derivation of German philosopher Karl Marx 's (1818–1883) definition of class, which was central to his theory of how society operates in a state of class conflict. In that state, an individual's power comes directly from one's economic class position relative to the means of production—one is either an owner of capitalist entities or a worker for one of the owners. Marx and fellow philosopher Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) presented this idea in " The Manifesto of the Communist Party ," and Marx expounded in much greater length in volume one of his work called "Capital."

Socio-Economic Class

Socio-economic class, also known as socioeconomic status  and often abbreviated as SES, refers to how other factors, namely occupation and education, are combined with wealth and income to rank a person relative to others in society. This model is inspired by the theories of German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920), who viewed the stratification of society as a result of the combined influences of economic class, social status (the level of a person's prestige or honor relative to others), and group power (what he called "party"). Weber defined "party" as the level of one's ability to get what they want, despite how others may fight them on it. Weber wrote about this in an essay titled "The distribution of power within the political community: Class, status, party," in his 1922 book "Economy and Society," published after his death.

Socio-economic class is a more complex formulation than economic class because it takes into account the social status attached to certain professions considered prestigious, like doctors and professors, for example, and to educational attainment as measured in academic degrees. It also takes into account the lack of prestige or even stigma that may be associated with other professions, like blue-collar jobs or the service sector, and the stigma often associated with not finishing high school. Sociologists typically create data models that draw on ways of measuring and ranking these different factors to arrive at a low, middle, or high SES for a given person.

Social Class

The term "social class" is often used interchangeably with SES, both by the general public and by sociologists alike. Very often when you hear it used, that is what it means. In a technical sense, however, social class is used to refer specifically to the characteristics that are less likely to change, or harder to change, than one's economic status, which is potentially changeable over time. In such a case, social class refers to the socio-cultural aspects of one's life, namely the traits, behaviors, knowledge, and lifestyle that one is socialized into by one's family. This is why class descriptors like "lower," "working," "upper," or "high" can have social as well as economic implications for how we understand the person described.

When someone uses "classy" as a descriptor, they are naming certain behaviors and lifestyle and framing them as superior to others. In this sense, social class is determined strongly by one's level of cultural capital , a concept developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002) in his 1979 work "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste." Bourdieu said that levels of class are determined by the attainment of a specific set of knowledge, behaviors, and skills that allow a person to navigate in society.

Why Does It Matter?

So why does class, however you want to name it or slice it, matter? It matters to sociologists because the fact that it exists reflects unequal access to rights, resources, and power in society—what we call social stratification . As such, it has a strong effect on the access an individual has to education, the quality of that education, and how high a level he or she can reach. It also affects who one knows socially, and the extent to which those people can provide advantageous economic and employment opportunities, political participation and power, and even health and life expectancy, among many other things.

Sources and Further Reading

  • Cookson Jr., Peter W. and Caroline Hodges Persell. "Preparing for Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools." New York: Basic Books, 1985.
  • Marx, Karl. " Capital: A Critique of Political Economy ." Trans. Moore, Samuel, Edward Aveling and Friedrich Engels. Marxists.org, 2015 (1867).
  • Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. " The Communist Manifesto ." Trans. Moore, Samuel and Friedrich Engels. Marxists.org, 2000 (1848).
  • Weber, Max. "Economy and Society." ed. Roth, Guenther and Claus Wittich. Oakland: University of California Press, 2013 (1922).
  • The Differences Between Socialism and Communism
  • So What Is Culture, Exactly?
  • What's the Difference Between Prejudice and Racism?
  • What Is Capitalism?
  • What Is Social Stratification, and Why Does It Matter?
  • What You Need to Know About Economic Inequality
  • Understanding Karl Marx's Class Consciousness and False Consciousness
  • The Sociology of Consumption
  • Max Weber's Key Contributions to Sociology
  • Introduction to Sociology
  • 15 Major Sociological Studies and Publications
  • What is a Norm? Why Does it Matter?
  • What Does Consumerism Mean?
  • Visualizing Social Stratification in the U.S.
  • Understanding Alienation and Social Alienation
  • Definition of Scapegoat, Scapegoating, and Scapegoat Theory

Marked by Teachers

  • TOP CATEGORIES
  • AS and A Level
  • University Degree
  • International Baccalaureate
  • Uncategorised
  • 5 Star Essays
  • Study Tools
  • Study Guides
  • Meet the Team
  • Work & Leisure

SOCIAL CLASS DIVISION

Authors Avatar

SOCIAL CLASS DIVISIONS WITHIN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.

There has been a sustained and substantial achievement gap based on social class within the education system. Pupils from middle- class backgrounds have consistently outperformed those form working -class families. This has varied little despite the introduction of the tri-partite system in 1944 and the attempt to remove such differences through comprehensivisation in the 1960s and 1970s. This is a serious social issue in a liberal, democratic society which emphasises a commitment to equality of opportunity therefore there exists a widespread amount of research by sociologists into the causes and sources of working-class underachievement.

The 1870 Education Act provided school accommodation 'for all the children for whose elementary education efficient and sizable provision is not otherwise made', while the 1902 Act introduced a secular framework for the education system by placing it under the control of local education authorities, with some exceptions which allowed for the existence of sectarian, Christian schools under specified conditions.  However, probably the most important Education Act was passed in 1944, which laid the foundation of the contemporary education system. Its major contribution was an attempt to put into effect the notion of ‘equality of opportunity’ through the provision of free secondary education for all, together with other support measures.

During the 1950s and 1960s, dissatisfaction with the tripartite secondary system grew significantly. The election of government in 1964 brought commitment to universal comprehensive education which was consolidated into the

However, in the 1970s it was possible to demonstrate that the proportion of working-class children going on to university had not changed in fifty years, and that working-class children were much less likely than middle-class children to find themselves in the then grammar schools, top streams and examination classes, or staying on past the official school-leaving age. Explanations for this phenomenon were sought in the characteristics of different children, their upbringing and environment, and in the selection procedures and underlying assumptions which were employed by teachers and schools. Schools were seen to be reflecting and reinforcing the social class divisions of the wider society.

The Education Act was repealed in 1979 on the election of the Conservative Government.

Education Acts introduced during the 1980s continued to emphasise the extent to which they represented instruments of social policy, and reflected contrasting political philosophies. These Acts quite specifically abandoned the principles of equality of opportunity and universal comprehensive education. Thus, the 1980 Education Act strengthened the provision of private schooling by introducing an’ Assisted Places Scheme’ which would reimburse fees for independent schools, but there is little evidence to suggest that poorer families benefited from it.

The 1980 Act extended the 'market economy' principle, the cornerstone of Thatcherite conservatism, in the system. The Act allowed parents to send their children to schools of their choice. Critics suggest that this has lead to the creation of a two-tier system of education which the poorer classes suffer.

One of the major preoccupations of the sociology of education in its formative years was to demonstrate the extent to which the prevailing education system reflected and acted to reinforce the class system. They sought to demonstrate that the private sector within education allows those who are already in superior social positions to ensure that, for the most part, their children remain in superior positions. Also, that the state system perpetuates, (through its methods of streaming, curriculum arrangements, examinations and social location in specific neighbourhoods) a way of continuing to educate the children of middle- class, working-class (and ethnic minority groups) more or less separately.

Join now!

It was the evidence which supported these kinds of observations provided by J. W. B. Douglas (The Home and the School, 1961.), for example, and Brian Jackson (Streaming, The Education System in Miniature, 1962.), in the 1960s that did much to enhance the arguments for comprehensive reorganisation in the 1970s, as a way of equalising the educational opportunities for working-class (and black) children.

This is a preview of the whole essay

It was possible to demonstrate in the 1970s that the proportion of working-class children going on to university had not changed in fifty years, and that working-class children were much less likely than middle-class children to find themselves in the then grammar schools, top streams and examination classes, or staying on past the official school-leaving age. Explanations for this phenomenon were sought in the characteristics of different children, their upbringing and environment, and in the selection procedures and underlying assumptions which were employed by teachers and schools. But whoever was responsible, the facts were inescapable. Schools were seen to be reflecting and reinforcing the social class divisions of the wider society.

In the 1980s and 1990s the education debate was greatly influenced by the return to power of successive Conservative Governments and the emergence of the New Right. This development has been described as new vocationalism, and is associated with the reintroduction of arguments about increased parental choice, competition and standards in education, the introduction of the national curriculum and a renewed emphasis on training and links with industry.

Until the 1950s discussions were dominated by the ideas of functionalist sociology, especially the legacy of Durkheim. It was Durkheim who saw education as a means of preserving social order. Mannheim   took a related view, describing education as a way of ensuring social harmony and resolving social problems. Functionalists believe that: the education system does what it claims to do; it selects people according to their abilities and qualifies them accordingly; there is a rough correspondence between intelligence and achievement; and that education is the device which ensures that the most able people get the most responsible and best paid work.

Marxists agree with functionalists that education operates to socialize individuals and groups into the requirements and demands of society. But because, in our society, this means capitalism, and because Marxists are opposed to capitalism, they are immensely critical of the ways in which young people are schooled into conforming to the requirements of a capitalist society. Bowles and Gintis, for example, argue that schools are not meant to maximize potential but to produce uncritical, passive, docile workers who accept their lot in life. Rather than teaching children specific vocational skills, the ‘hidden’ purpose of education is to prepare children for the tedium of work.

It is therefore a function of the education system to reproduce existing social class inequalities in which the ruling class and middle-class (who are often portrayed by Marxists as the agents of the capitalist ruling class) dominate positions of power and wealth whilst the working-class remain stranded at the bottom end of the socio-economic hierarchy. In other words, working-class underachievement is taken-for-granted but it is shaped in such an ideological way that the education system and the capitalist system are rarely blamed by the working-class for their failure. The Marxist, Pierre Bourdieu (1974) has developed the 'cultural capital' theory of achievement and underachievement in order to explain some of these processes.

Like other Marxists, Bourdieu argues that the main function of education is to reproduce and legitimate ruling class culture (i.e. cultural reproduction) and power. Another important function of education is to socialise the working-class into a culture of failure so that they take-up, without protest, unrewarding and relatively boring jobs in the factory system. Bourdieu argues that working-class failure is not due to them being handicapped by cultural and linguistic deprivation. Rather it the product of entering an educational system shaped and dominated by the culture of the capitalist class. Bourdieu notes that dominant classes are able to define what is defined as knowledge and culture and this is enshrined within the educational system. Moreover they are able to define the knowledge and culture of subordinate groups such as the working-class as less worthy of attention and study. Bourdieu refers to this as 'symbolic violence'.

The children of the dominant classes come to school equipped with 'cultural capital'; they subscribe to values, norms, experiences, linguistic skills and forms of knowledge, which fit into the ruling class ethos of the school. This cultural capital is the product of their home environment in which their daily experience results in them internalising particular ways of thinking which come to be taken-for-granted such as going to university one day. Such children normally achieve their educational goals especially as their parents can also offer material supports such as paying for extras such as books, courses, trips, or private education. The children of the working-classes, on the other hand, experience a 'cultural deficit'; they soon realise that the school and teachers attach little value to their experiences and values. In order to succeed, such children have to rapidly acquire the sorts of skills associated with cultural capital. Most fail to do this and are alienated by the middle-class nature of schooling. Such pupils often come into conflict with the school and end up either losing interest or eliminating themselves or, are eliminated by public examinations. The dominant social class promotes education as a meritocracy; it is assumed that education is open to all (equality of opportunity) and that all are judged according to the same criteria of academic skills. However, Bourdieu argues that meritocracy is an ideological myth aimed at convincing working-class pupils that their failure is self-inflicted.

The research of Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe (1995) supports some elements of cultural capital theory in that they found that middle-class parents possessed more cultural capital than working-class parents in terms of knowledge about recent reforms in education and parental choice. In particular, they found that middle-class parents were consequently more willing to invest energy in researching and visiting schools, making multiple applications, or going through appeals procedures.

Bourdieu is rather vague in his opinion of ‘cultural capital' and precisely how it impacts on educational achievement is unclear. Bourdieu's focus on cultural reproduction and the elimination of the working-class from education can be seen as over-deterministic. It implies that the working-class are doomed to failure and therefore does not account for working-class success. Moreover it does not acknowledge that working-class pupils may choose to negotiate their way through the education system or even reject the value system of education altogether. The work of Paul Willis, for example, suggests that educational 'failure' may be partly the product of some working-class pupils resisting dominant definitions of what constitutes 'success' and 'failure'.

Interactionist theory focuses on what goes on in the classroom between teachers and pupils rather than social factors external to the school. Interactionist approaches have concentrated on the processes of surveillance and evaluation adopted by teachers when they interact with children. It is claimed that teacher observation of pupils and the judgements about pupil ability and attitude which result, can have profound effects on the future performance of pupils.

Interactionists argue that the labels that teachers attach to pupils are often not based on objective criteria. Rather, they are based on commonsensical belief about what constitutes an 'ideal pupil'. This ideal may be constructed around stereotypes; teachers may subscribe to mistaken ideas about working-class families, council estates, or broken homes.

Becker's (1971) research suggests that teachers see middle-class pupils as closest to the 'ideal pupil' in terms of performance, conduct, attitude and appearance, whilst working-class pupils are seen as furthest from it. Becker went as far as suggesting that for many teachers, attitude, conduct and appearance were more important in making judgements about pupils, than ability or intelligence. Interactionist research confirms the existence of the 'hidden curriculum’; ideal pupils generally meet all the requirements of conformity that the hidden curriculum demands. Interactionists argue that the labels applied by teachers to pupils shape the nature and quality of the interaction between pupil and teacher. The teacher, consciously or unconsciously, communicates the label to the pupil.  Pupils react positively or negatively to teacher judgements and this may have a 'self fulfilling prophecy'.

The concept of the 'self fulfilling prophecy' was developed by the social experiment carried out by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968). They randomly selected 20% of the new intake of an elementary school in the USA and told the teachers that these children had scored highly on intelligence tests. This was untrue. However, when they returned to the school one year later, Rosenthal and Jacobson found that their sample had forged ahead of the other 80% of pupils. They concluded that teachers had somehow communicated positive labels to these pupils through the quality of their interaction and the pupils had responded accordingly.  However Rosenthal and Jacobson's research has some serious flaws. They did not actually watch classroom interaction to see if teachers did behave differently to the pupils they had identified as intellectual 'sputters'. Other attempts to replicate their research have not had the same results as Rosenthal and Jacobson claimed to have found. Their interpretation of the results of the experiment also ignored certain data which did not fit their research hypothesis.

With regards to streaming, there is evidence that teachers expect less of those in bottom streams and this undermines the quality of their teaching. Keddie (1971) found that streaming had a profound effect upon teacher attitudes and practices; 'A' streamers were trusted to work with the minimum of supervision and to make a contribution to class discussion whilst teachers believed that 'C' streamers were in need of constant social control and rarely left on their own.

A range of studies including those conducted by Hargreaves (1967), Ball (1981)  suggest that those in the bottom streams may socially react to their perceived inferior status by forming delinquent or anti-school subcultures which award status to their members on the basis of anti-school activity, by being disruptive. Such behaviour, indeed, confirms the prophecy of the teacher; the label.

Interactionism has drawn our attention to the micro-processes operating within the education system which may be impacting on achievement levels.  It implies that achievement may not be impartially determined by social factors beyond our control; success and failure may involve making choices which develop from interaction. In this sense, success and failure may not be fixed; they may be adaptable reactions which can be changed for the better by changing the quality of the interaction.

The interpretivist Marxist, Paul Willis suggests that labelling theory under-estimates the influence of working-class culture. In his study, 'Leaning to Labour', he concludes that working-class boys 'failed' because they rejected middle-class definitions of success and failure. The ‘Lads’ valued factory jobs and therefore regarded educational qualifications as largely irrelevant. The lads in Willis' study took little notice of teacher labelling. Willis', study of 'the Lads' was 'Marxist ethnography'; participant observation and unstructured interviewing interpreted within an overall Marxist structure. The problem with this approach as with all interpretivism however, is that of interpretation; Willis interprets the behaviour of 'the Lads' through a Marxist perspective, therefore other perspective interpretations would very probably produce different conclusions.

Interpretivists have made a substantial contribution to a sociological understanding of education. In particular they have provided a very useful focus on classroom interaction and we have a much better understanding of the processes of labelling and negotiation, which take place between teachers and pupils.

This focus on the way meanings are constructed through classroom interaction offers another perspective on education in addition to the structuralist concerns with the social role and function of education. The weaknesses of the Interpretivist approach lie primarily in its failure to fully recognise the way external social structures influence the meanings negotiated in the classroom. Those approaches which attempt to relate classroom interaction to the wider social structure have their own difficulties but offer a useful way to apply the strengths of an Interpretivist approach.

In considering most of the evidence presented by sociologists, it is clear that a

 two-tier system of education exists, in which those parents with economic resources and appropriate cultural capital can ensure that their children get the best possible start in life. Parents who are less well informed, lacking in social power or merely poor  have little choice other than to send their children to the nearest school ; always supposing that the school is prepared to accept them. In schools in which children come from poor homes, in areas of multiple deprivation and poverty it is highly unlikely that the test and examination results will compare favourably with those of more privileged schools. The morale of pupils and teachers in such schools has deteriorated, making them increasingly difficult to manage.  As long as these issues continue to exist the present school system reinforces social class divisions among our children of the future.

SOCIAL CLASS DIVISION

Document Details

  • Word Count 2742
  • Page Count 7
  • Level AS and A Level
  • Subject Sociology

Related Essays

Social Class and Identity                                                                                              1.      The working class are associated mainly with the labour party and trade unions

Social Class and Identity...

Views on Human Nature and the Division of Labour

Views on Human Nature and the Division of Labour

Examine the ways in which educational policies may reproduce and justify social class inequalities

Examine the ways in which educational policies may reproduce and justify so...

Outline some of the ways in which some marketisation and selection policies may produce social class differences in educational achievement.

Outline some of the ways in which some marketisation and selection policies...

Home / Essay Samples / Sociology / Social Class / Division Of People Into Social Classes

Division Of People Into Social Classes

  • Category: Sociology
  • Topic: People , Social Class , Society

Pages: 3 (1319 words)

Views: 1956

  • Downloads: -->

REFERENCES:

  • Grant, J. Andrew (2001), “Class, definition of.” In Jones, R.J. Barry. Routledge Encyclopedia of international Political Economy Entries A-F Taylor & Francis. P161. ISBN 978-0-415-24350-6
  • Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels (1943) “Manifesto of the communist party”, selected works volume 1; London p231
  • Weber Max (2015/1921). “classes, stande, parties” in Weber’s rationalism and modern society, edited and translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, pp, 37-57.
  • CBSLOCAL April 16, 2015 “Beverly Hills named 2nd and 3rd Most Expensive in America” CBS Broadcasting Inc. www.losangeles.cbslocal.com Bell Hooks 2000 “where we stand:class matters” Routledge.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Media Analysis Essays

Conflict Resolution Essays

Rhetorical Strategies Essays

Journalism Essays

Socialization Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->