Despite the existence of theoretical statements to the effect that status dependents directly derive their own status from the adult male head of the household, there is little systematic research in support. Survey data from university students is made homogeneous on several dimensions and then subjected to regression analyses predicting the self-placement of these youths using status indicators of both mother and father. Among the findings are that the objective indicators are of little importance, that subjective definition of mothers is more important than that of fathers in one's self-placement, and that there are sex-specific effects. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Hodge, R. W.
, & Treiman, D. J. (1968). Class identification in the United States. American Journal of Sociology. 73, 535-547.
2.
Jackman, M. R.
(1974). The subjective meaning of social class identification in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly. 43, 443-462.
3.
Jackman, M. R.
, & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relations between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review. 30, 569-582.
4.
Kluegel, J. R.
, Singleton, R., & Stames, C. E. (1977). Subjective class indentification: A multiple indicator approach. American Sociological Review. 42, 599-611.
5.
Landecker, W. S.
(1963). Class crystallization and class consciousness. American Sociological Review. 28, 219-229.
6.
Leggett, J. C.
(1968). Class, race and labor: Working class consciousness in Detroit. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Nock, S. L.
, & Rossi, P. D. (1978). Ascription versus achievement in the attribution of family social status. American Journal of Sociology. 84, 565-590.
8.
Parsons, T.
(1954a). An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Essays in sociological theory (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
9.
Parsons, T.
(1954b). Age and sex in the social structure of the United States. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Essays in sociological theory (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
10.
Parsons, T.
(1954c). The kinship system of the contemporary United States. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Essays in sociological theory (rev. ed.).
11.
Parsons, T.
(1954d). Social classes and class confliction in the light of recent sociological theory. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Essays in sociological theory (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
12.
Parsons, T.
(1954e). A revised analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Essays in sociological theory (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
13.
Reiss, A. J.
(1961). Occupations and social status. New York: Free Press.
14.
Rosenfeld, R. A.
(1978). Women's intergenerational occupational mobility. American Sociological Review. 43, 36-46.
15.
Simmons, G.
& Rosenberg, M. (1971). Functions of children's perceptions of the stratification system. American Sociological Review. 36, 235-249.
16.
Stark, R.
(1979). Whose status counts? (Comment on Title, Villemez, & Smith. ASR. October, 1978). American Sociological Review. 44, 668-669.
17.
Van Velson, E.
& Beeghley, L. (1979). The process of class identification among employed married women: A replication and reanalysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 4, 771-777.
18.
Weinstein, E. A.
(1958). Children's conceptions of occupational stratification. Sociology and Social Research. 42, 278-284.
