Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A SYMPOSIUM
Socialization and the Life Cycle HONORING PROFESSORS A. Lee Coleman James W. Gladden E. Grant Youmans
March 10-11, 1978 Student Center University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 40506
-Sponsored by the Graduate School and the Department of Sociology of the University of Kentucky
PROGRAM (All sessions in President's-Room, UK Student Center)
Friday evening, March 10 8:15 p.m.
Presiding: Wimberly C. Royster Dean of The Graduate School University of Kentucky
Welcome: Lewis W. Cochran Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Kentucky
Presentation: F. Ivan Nye Professor of Sociology Florida State University "Socialization in the 19 70s: Overemphasis on Individualism?"
Saturday morning, March II 9:30 a.m.
Presiding: C. Oran Little Associate Dean, College of Agriculture Associate Director Agricultural Experiment Station University of Kentucky
Presentation: Archibald Haller Professor of Sociology University of Wisconsin "The Status-Attainment Process"
Saturday morning, March II (continued) 11:00 a.m.
Presiding: Art Gallaher J r. Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences University of Kentucky
Presentation: Robert J. Havighurst, Chairman Committee on Human Development University of Chicago "Socialization in the Adult Life Course"
Saturday afternoon 12:15 p.m.
Lunch. Smali Ballroom Make reservations by March 9. Please send check for $4 for luncheon to Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky. 40506 or call (606) 257·2951 or (606) 258-4798.
Presiding: Willis A. Sutton Professor and Chairman Department of Sociology University of Kentucky
Presentation: F. Ivan Nye
. Professor of Sociology Florida State University "Social Policy Research: An Emerging Specialty"
11 March 1978 University of Kentucky A.O. Haller
STATUS ATTAINMENT PROCESSES: PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Introduction
The paper that I am about to speak from is one of many products of a
large research effort that has been going for quite a few years. It concerns
the processes by which people are channeled into various ranked positions
in those social structures we call status hierarchies. These are extremely
complex matters, and you might think that the explanations that are offered
a re too simp 1 e.
What many of us who work in this area are trying to do is to develop
a way of looking at status attainment phenomena which is simple enough to
think with; which is comprehensive enough to provide intellectually satisfying
explanations of the process wherever it is found; which are not inconsistent
with the main 1 ines of thinking in the social sciences; which are fair to
a view of the social enterprise which treats social structures as constantly
created, recreated, and changing products of human interaction; and which
meets the test of empirical verifiability.
This particular paper presents data from one of the studies that has
been carried out at the University of Wisconsin and at Michigan State University.
It is a result of efforts of many people, among them Luther B. Otto, Joseph
Woelfel, Alejandro Portes, I/illiam H. Sewell, David L. Featherman, Michael
Carter, and Kenneth Spenner. Its special emphasis is on rechecking and
comparing evidence concerning certain social psychological processes in
status attainment. As you may know a rather consistent view of process has
emerged over the years. Here we check in a rough way the robustness of
the main processes posited by it and then go on to sug.gest new 1 ines of
work that need to be done to fill it out.
-2-
Throughout this paper we USe some key words. These will be quite
familiar to those of you who do research and who teach in this area. But
they may be new to others, so let's say a word or two about them. Here
"aspirations" mean variables describing differences among youths in the
hierarchical status levels they see as pertinent to themselves. For each
status variable there exists an hierarchical aspiration variable: Parallel
to objective educational attainment, there exists an educational aspiration
variable. Parallel to occupational status there exists an occupational
aspiration variable. Though it hasn't yet been brought into play yet in
research in this area, parallel to the hierarchy of income differences among
famil ies, there exists an income aspiration variable. Their are probably
others, but, if so, little is known about them as yet. "Significant others"
is another key idea. These are the persons who influence a youth's aspira
tions and attainments. So far, two types have been clearly identified in
this area: Definers and Models. There may be others, but as yet they
have not been clearly specified. Definers influence youth's status attain
ment processes by community status to these the status expectations these
hold for them. Like status aspirations of youth, for every status variable
such as the educational hierarchy, the occupational hierarchy, and the income
hierarchy, there exists a corresponding hierarchy of definers' status
expectations. A status expectation is the level that a definer sees as
reasonable for a youth's attainment. It may be a hope, a prediction, a
statement of what is feasible, etc. The most important definers seem to
be parents and teachers, but there are others, of course. Models are those
who illustrate statuses to youths. Some exhibit the statuses they hold
(parents, teachers, other adults); some exhibit their status aspirations
(school peers).
-3-
Background
In the American Occupational Structure, Blau and Duncan (1967) docu
mented the extent of status inheritance operating in contemporary U.S.
society, i.e., that son's achievements are not independent of family's
relative standing in the prestige hierarchy. In so doing they provided
empirical support for widely held hypotheses about the role of education
as a mechanism for distributing people into different social strata
(Sorokin, 1927) and as an agent of socialization for inculcating societal
values, norms, and achievement orientations (Parsons, 1959). More recent
efforts have attempted to provide a more detailed explanation of the
process by which parental socioeconomic advantage is passed on to sons,
and to try to begin to understand the contributions to attained status
which are not inherited from one's parents.
The social psychological conception holds that parental socioeconomic
statuses and other, as yet unknown, antecedents are transmitted to sons by
way of three sequenced social psychological mechanisms that sequentially:
I) the adolescent's academic performance, 2) the status indications
(expectations of definers and exemplications of models) provided to him by
significant-others, and 3) his own status aspirations. Aspirations are
seen as a central mechanism in the process. They are formed and modified
in social interaction. The individual assesses his educational and
occupational potentials in light of his own displays of his mental ability
and academic performance. The effects of his "self-reflection" are
supplimental by the reflective activity of his definers; these significant
others assess his attributes and performance when communicating the expecta
tions they hold for him. Formed before adolescence, educational and
occupational status aspirations guide status attainments. The model is
-4-
fairly successful at explaining the effects of background statuses. Appl ied
to data on Wisconsin youth, it mediates all but about a third of the total
effect of background statuses on educational attainment and virtually al I
of the effect on occupational attainment except for 57 percent of the total
effect of father's occupational prestige which remains unexplained. The
specification is least successful as an explanation for son's earnings where
approximately two-thirds of the effect is direct. The predictive power of
the theoretical model is evident in that it accounts for 54 percent of the
variance in educational attainment, 43 percent of the variance in occupa
tional attainment and 7 percent of the variance in earnings (Sewell and
Hauser, 1975). Alexander ~~. (1975) have recently provided strong
independent support for the theory. Their analysis is based on a national
sample.
But different data sets include somewhat different variables. And
even when they are conceptually the same, the operational definitions often
differ. They may also differ by age cohort and by the span of time covered.
The Sewell et al. cohort consists of Wisconslin high school seniors from
the 1957 graduating class, and their time span was seven years. The
Alexander et ~. cohort consists of the nation's 1957 high school sophomores,
and the time span was 15 years. Our own data, consist of the 80 percent
(N=340) of Lenawee County Michigan's 17-year-olds when we first contacted
in 1957, the time span was 15 years (to 1972). An explanation that is
worthy of serious consideration should be robust enough to survilve some
differences regarding the inclusion of variables, their measurement, age
cohorts, and time spans.
We skip over the details of measurement and go directly to the results
regarding the Lenawee County sample. To help one understand the general
-5-
perspective, we have provided a rough diagram of the sequence of variables
which now seems to be pretty well agreed upon among the researchers. The
presumed causal sequence moves from the left-hand column to those on the
right. Bracketed variables are some of the more important ones implied by
the theory but as yet not incorporated into appropriate data sets.
Causal Structure of Attainment Antecedents
We first focus on the relationships among th~ common antecedents of
the three attainment variables--education, occupational status, and income
(Table 1). For whatever reasons--test bias, differences in the social
Table about here
environment, or other factors--a positive association between performance
on intelligence tests and socioeconomic status is generally reported in
the literature. Our data agree. Parental statuses account for 8 percent
of the variance in son's measured mental abil ity score. Better educated
mothers also stimulate son's academic performance levels; but paternal
influence is indirect via mental ability. High status fathers influence
their sons by providing a social context which emphasizes scholastic values
and motivations whereas mothers are more directly involved in teaching and
in monitoring performance. Parental influence coupled with one's ability
account for 26 percent of the variance in one's high school grades (Otto,
1975; 1976).
The theory is that significant-others--especially parents and friends--
bring to bear upon the formation and adjustment of the youth's aspirations
value orientations which are at least partially consistent with the family's
socioeconomic position. Their expectations are further governed by their
observations of the youth's ability and adolescent role performance. Our
analysis indicates that the level of educational encouragement parents give
(
-6-
their sonS is indeed affected by their own socioeconomic statuses, and it
is also affected by the youth's demonstrated levels of ability and performance.
These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that parental educational
expectations and encouragement are among the social psychological mechanisms
by which the status of parents tends to be transmitted to their sons.
Parental socioeconomic statuses, mental abil ity and academic performance
account for 17 percent of the variance in parental educational expectations
for their children.
The same antecedents account for even more of the variance in peer
influence (R2
= 20 percent), but the pattern of effects differs. Fathers'
statuses have no direct influence on friends' educational plans. Whatever
influence they have on friends occurs through mothers and in setting the
social context within which the son's ability and performance will be
encouraged by others. Mothers, however, exert more of a direct controlling
influence on the peer models to which their sons are exposed, perhaps by
influencing patterns of associations. Li¥ewise, the mean educational aspira
tions of the youth's friends have a significant regression on his abil ity
and grades. These analyses provide further support for the hypothesis that
status expectations or status exempl ifications bearing upon a youth's
aspirations are influenced by his own ability and past performance in school.
The analyses reported thus far provide evidence for our theoretical
specification of anticipated efforts. But important questions concerning
the antecedents of aspirations remain unanswered: Is there evidence that
the youth also weighs his demonstrated abi 1 ity and past performance in
forming his aspirations? Do the two intervening processes--youth's academic
performance and significant-other influences--fully mediate the effect of
-7-
socioeconomic origins on aspirations? Are aspirations formed and modified
in interaction with others (a social psychological explanation) or might
they be internally constructed (a psychological explanation) and largely
immune to social influences? The last two columns in Table I inform these
queries.
First of all, the two-stage process does not exhaust the mechanisms
whereby parental socioeconomic advantage is translated into educational
and occupational aspirations. Parents' statuses, notably those indicated
by father's occupational prestige and/or education, have a significant
positive and direct effect on aspiration levels statistically control I ing
on all other antecedents. This suggests that there may be 1 inkages which,
though not yet formally identified, further assist the status transmission
process. (At least part of this missing I inkage is probably due to effects
of significant-other's occupational expectations or exemplifications, which
are treated elsewhere (see Woelfel and Haller, 1971). Second, our analysis
reveals consistent evidence that the youth takes his own past performance
into account in formulating his aspiration levels. (The partial betas are
.321 and .296, respectively). In formulating occupational aspi rations he
also appears to reflect on his mental ability (partial S = .144); (although
it is still a mystery how, net of his academic performance, he can obtain
the evidence regarding his mental ability which he obviously must have in
order to reflect upon it). His adolescent role performance is made more
salient through the evaluations given by those most influential to him.
Finally, parents and friends have a positive direct r.ole in molding the
youth's educational and occupational aspirations, increasing the explained
variance from 40 to 48 percent for educational aspirations and from 38 to 45
percent for occupational aspirations. Thus, significant-others function as
-8-
more than mere intermediaries in the process of status transmission. They
are also agents in the aspiration formation process. Part of their contri
bution to his aspirations comes from their own statuses, part comes from
their evaluation of the youths' ability, and part comes from courses as yet
unidentified.
In summary, our analysis provides strong support for crucial elements
of the social psychological theory of the status attainment process, to
wit: son's aspirations are positively associated with family socioeconomic
statuses; son appears to reflect upon his mental ability and academic per
formance in formulating his educational and occupational aspirations; his
significant-other's status, expectations, and the status examples they pro
vide are positively related to the youth's later socioeconomic status and
are influenced by his demonstrated abil ity and performance. This two-stage
process helps to explain but does not fully explicate how background socio
economic status influences levels of aspirations: With respect to father's
occupational prestige 51 percent of the effect on educational aspirations
and 25 percent of the effect on occupational aspirations remains unexplained;
with respect to father's education 66 percent of the effect on educational
and occupational aspirations is unaccounted for; and with respect to mother's
education 26 percent of the effect on educational aspirations and 17 percent
of the effect on occupational aspirations is not explained by the model.
Antecedents of Attainment
Our focus now shifts to an analysis of the process of socioeconomic
attainment, again concentrating on the LC data.
Education. That family position in the stratification order would be
positively associated with level of educational attainment is expected and
( ,
-9-
is supported by our data (Table 2). Family socioeconomic statuses account
for 18 percent of the variance in the level of education-achieved by the
Table 2 about here
son 15 years after high school. Thirty-two percent of the effect of father's
occupational prestigeand 17 percent of father's and mother's educational
influence is mediated by mental ability which increases the variance accounted
2 for in educational attainment by another 10 percent (R = .281). Similarly,
academic performance, which may have direct effects or effects mediated by
significant others andlor aspirations, accounts for an additional 18 percent
of the variance in education. But it does not explain the remaining direct
influence of social origins: 57 percent of the effect of father's occupa-
tional prestige, 84 percent of the effect of father's education and 43 percent
of the effect of mother's education.
The theory holds that a second link in the status transmission process
is composed of certain kinds of influence due to significant-others. This
link includes the status expectations held for the youth by his parents and
teachers and the status aspirations exemplified by his best friends. With
respect to each parental status indicator, these variables pertaining to
significant-others mediate between 6 and 17 percent of the total effect,
contro 11 i ng on a 11 other antecedents. I n add i t i on, sign i f i cant-others add
an independent 5 percent to the predictive power of the education model.
Lest one conclude that fathers have a direct effect on son's educational
attainments but that mothers do not, the true nature of the parental rela-
tionships is unmasked when aspirations are introduced as the third explana-
tory mechanism in the educational attainment process. That aspirations-
both educational and occupational-have significant effects on educational
(
-10-
attainment (statistically control 1 ing on parental socioeconomic statuses,
mental abil ity, academic performance and significant-other influences) is
evident from the substantial increase in the variance. The youth's status
aspirations comprise the third stage of the theoretical model. When they
are added, the model largely, though not quite totally, explains the status
transmission process with respect to education. Of the total effects of
father's occupation and father's and mother's education, all but 17, 43
and 16 percent are explained by the three-stage social psychological mechanisms.
In addition, the total effect of mental ability is virtually fully explained
(96 percent) by academic performance, significant-other influences and
aspirations; but a substantial proportion (54 percent) of the total effect
of academic performance on educational attainment is direct--i.e., it is not
mediated by significant-other and self-assessments which adjust aspiration
levels. The direct effects of significant-other influences are substantially
moderated by aspirations. In fact, perhaps a third of the positive rela
tionship between significant-other influences and education may be counter
acted by an unmasked negative direct effect of parental educational encourage
ment. (This finding suggests the possibility that some youths may be a bit
hampered in making career decisions by conflicting indications communicated
by significant-others.)
In summary, we find substantial support for the social psychological
explanation of the educational attainment process. Educational attainment
is positively related to background socioeconomic statuses and that influence
is largely mediated by the three-stage process sequentially involving mental
ability and academic performance, significant-other influences and aspira
tions. Earlier analysis supported the thesis that youth's aspirations are
-11-
adjusted by self-reflection and the assessments of significant-others which
influence the status indications they communicate. The present analysis
shows that aspirations have a substantial net effect on educational attain
ment, completing a predictive model that explains 62 percent of the variance
in educational attainments and, more importantly, explains most of the status
inheritance effect.
Occupational status. In the normal sequence of status attainments,
level of occupational prestige is positively affected by respondent's educa
tional attainment and directly affects his earning power. The extent of
occupational status inheritance operating in a population can be indicated
by the relationship between father's and son's occupational prestige,
statistically controlling on all other parental status variables. The total
effect is substantial (p = .24). Moreover, the extent of status inheritance
is enhanced by the total effect of mother's education on son's occupational
attainment. Parental socioeconomic position accounts for 12 percent of the
variance in son's eventual occupational attainments. Mental ability mediates
20 percent of the total effect of father's occupational prestige and 17
percent of the total effect of mother's education. It increases the variance
accounted for in occupational prestige by about a third.
Youth's past academic performance exerts a strong independent effect
on occupational status (the variance accounted for nearly doubles, to R2 =
34 percent). Yet the findings remain consistent with our theory that past
performance guides the youth in setting his aspiration levels and provides
essential input to significant-others' status indications. Mental ability
and academic performance mediate 28 percent of the total affect of father's
occupation and 90 percent of the total effect of mother's education. More
over, 67 percent of the effect of mental abil ity on occupational attainment
is indirectly transmitted via youth's grade point average.
-12-
Eleven percent of the total proportion of variance accounted for in
occupational attainment is contributed by significant-other indications.
(These are probably underestimated due to the absence of measures of signi
ficant-other's occupational status indications.) The total relationship
between academic performance and occupational attainment is expected to be
both direct (i.e., unmediated by hypothesized linkages) and indirect (i.e.,
mediated via significant-other influences). Significant-others collectively
transmit 14 percent of the total effect of scholastic performance on occupa
tional attainment. Together with GPA they absorb 83 percent of the total
influence of mental ability. Significant-other effects are, in turn,
largely mediated by the operation of the third stage mechanism, aspirations.
Consider, for example, that all of the occupational effects of parental
expectations and 38 percent of the corresponding peer effects are mediated
by aspirations. As predictors of occupational attainment, aspirations
increase the variance accounted for by seven percent (R2
= 45).
The fully specified model indicates that education is the principal
mechanism for occupational status attainment, however. Independently of
other processes, educational attainment explains an additional 11 percent
of the total effect of father's occupation, 39 percent of the total effect
of academic performance, 27 percent of the influence of occupational aspira
tions and 78 percent of the influence of educational aspirations. In summary,
we have estimated a model that accounts for 50 percent of the variance in
occupational attainment. The findings, we think tend to support the social
psychological interpretation of the occupational attainment process. None
theless, the model accounts for 54 percent of the total effect of father's
occupational prestige indicating that about half of son's occupational
-13-
attainment remains unexplained by the social psychological conception of
the occupational transmission process.
Earnings
The social psychological explanations of the attainment process which
have been proferred to date have been least successful in accounting for
the variance in and specifying the mechanisms for the economic dimension,
perhaps because the explanatory variables were selected for their relevance
to educational and occupational attainment rather than to earnings (Sewell
and Hauser, 1972). I n the LC data-set as we 11 as those Alexander, et a 1 .
(1975) and Sewell and Hauser (1972, 1975), this set of variables explained
no more than 12 percent of the variance in earnings in this as well as the
other projects. More detailed comparisons with the predictive power of
previous studies are made below.
None of these data sets--nor any others, so far as we know--includes
indication of youths' aspirations and their significant-others' expectations
for income attainments. Hence, these data-sets lack some of the variables
most central to the social psychological theory as it applies to income
status attainment (Haller and Portes, 1973: 75-86). This being the case,
there is little we can do with these data to operational ize a social
psychological specification of the earnings process. In addition, the LC
data lack a family income indicator, which Sewell and Hauser (1975) found
to be most strongly associated with son's earnings ten years after high
school. In its absence our analysis appears to show that mother's level
of education has the most pronounced influence on son's earnings 15 years
later. Further, most of that effect is direct; the social psychological
processes that informed our understanding of educational and occupational
-14-
attainments explain only 32 percent of mother's educational influence.
The key 1 inkages are academic performance and significant-other influences.
Respondent's mental ability has a total effect that is largely mediated by
academic performance and significant-other influences; peers have an effect
that is half mediated by aspirations and educational attainment; and about
a third of the influence of education on earnings is mediated by occupational
status. Most of the effect of education on earnings occurs within occupa-
tions, however.
In summary, present data do not permit a satisfactory specification
for either predicting or explaining the earnings process early in one's
career, although our specification does account for at least as much variance
in earnings ,as do the models estimated for the previous data sets. Obviously
the data cannot therefore provide a fair test of the position. Here, social
origins appear to account for only six percent of the variance in earnings
a~d only mother's educational level provides statistically significant total
(and direct) effect. Mental ability, peers' educational aspirations and
education are the only other variables that display a significant total
effect. There is evidence that the social psychological variables we have
included may function as mechanisms in the causal sequence culminating in
earnings, although the effect is modest. Moreover, the fully specified
model accounts for only 12 percent of the variance in earnings.
In the following section we discuss our findings in the context of
previous research and assesS the accumulated evidence for the social
psychological explanation of the status attainment process.
The social psychological theory purports to be an explanation of the
process of status attainment. Is the explanation it provides complete, is
it partial, or is it altogether false? Does it provide a contribution to
-15-
the explanation of status inheritance? Of special importance is the question
of whether the multistage process explains the reality of status inheritance.
Status inheritance is defined as the empirical association between origin
socioeconomic statuses and destination statuses or attainments. We take
the proportion of the total effect explained by the process as the statistical
indicator of the adequacy of the explanation. By decomposition we are able
to also determine the relative explanatory power of the specific mechanisms
within and between the models applied to this and the other samples. The
indicator we use is the percentage of the total effect mediated by the
measures of a theoretical construct.
Table 3 provides a tabular comparison of the explanatory power of each
Table 3 about here
theoretical mechanism and the additive effect of the complete process. To
save time we shall skip the details.
In summary, the social psychological mechanisms operate with reasonable
consistency across comparable models estimated for the three data sets.
The data exhibit the greatest range in the explanatory power of intervening
mechanisms. The Sewell estimates are noteworthy for the especially strong
mediating role of significant-other educational influences; and the LC
estimates tend to be strongest as estimates of the mediating role of aspira
tions on attainments.
There are other differences in estimates across samples that are note
worthy, in that only two of the studies show similar effects. (In the
Sewell and LC data, unlike the Alexander study, mother's education has a
significant total effect on educational and occupational attainment; and
the Sewell and Alexander studies agree in that, unlike the LC estimates,
-16-
father's education has a significant total effect on son's occupational
attainment.) These differences suggest caution with respect to the general-
izability of Hauser's (1972) finding that background socioeconomic indicators
operate unidimensionally with respect to aspirations and attainment. The
finding holds in neither the Alexander nor the LC data.
Differences with respect to the total effects of family income on
attainments and the total effects of background socioeconomic statuses on
earnings are not considered because of the noncomparability of indicators
and the relative lack of associations between origin statuses and son's
earn i ng power.
Conclusion
On the whole, the analysis of the Lenawee County data provides an
independent corroboration of the social psychological theory of the status
attainment process. These data and those of the Sewell and Alexander analyses
are consistent with the three-stage process of status inheritance that the
theory predicts, both with respect to the separate and additive effects of
the predicted linkages. The LC estimates of the explanatory power of the
social psychological process tend to equal or surpass those previously
reported in the literature. Likewise, as a predictive model the Lenawee
County estimates of "explained" variance (see Table 4), equal or exceed
those previously reported. We believe that this is done more to refinements
in measurement than to differences in the phenomena. Ta ken together the
Table 4 about here
Sewell, Alexander and LC studies provide strong support for the general
1 i nes of the soc i a 1 psychol og ica 1 explanat ion~of the sta~tusatta inment
" ..
-17-
process. This support is the more notable in that it is based on conceptual
cross-validations, not exact replications.
The only possible serious challenge to this general conclusion is that
of Wilson and Portes (1975). But difficulties with their own analysis
make it advisable to hold in abeyance their conclusion "structural," rather
than social psychological factors, determine status attainment.
Nonetheless, a few remarks indicating research lines which could improve
our capacity to assess and extend status attainment theory might be in
order. First, it would seem that the social psychological variables, although
effective, operate in sl ightly different ways in each of thhee samples.
This may be done to differences among couples, differences on the quality
of measurement, or differences in the availability of certain variables.
But it seems more likely that it it due mostly to the fact that all data
sets lack indicators to measure some of the social psychological variables
called for by the theory. As the theory applies to educational, occupational,
and income attainments, a data-set capable of fully expressing (Haller and
Portes, 1973) would have to include-besides mental abi 1 ity and academic
performance-valid and reliable indicators of each of the 12 status-related
variables formed by cross-classifying three types of status by four types
of status "isomorphs." The three statuses are educational status, occupa
tional prestige, and income. The four isomorphs are the status exemplifi
cations presented by one's models, the corresponding status expectations of
one's definers, the corresponding pre-attainment status aspirations one
comes to hold for himself, and the corresponding objective statuses one
attains prior to occupational attainment. The theory holds that in a fully
1-, operational ized model the highest partial led relationships will be found
among isomorphic variables. Thereafter, the highest partial led relationships
-18-
/' will be found for the prior status variable and for the corresponding status
~ isomorphs. The objective status variables would have to be measured at the
, life cycle point of maximum status differentiation among cohort members.
That is, immediately after the members of the cohort have arrived at age of
maximum status distinction among themselves. In today's world, for educa-
tional status this would be about age 25; for occupational prestige status
perhaps age 35; and for income status about age 45 (Haller, Spenner, and
Miller, unpublished). For such a data-set the theory predicts especially
strong linkages between successive isomorphs (exemplifications, expectations,
aspirations, and attained statuses) of the same root status variables, and
from educational to occupational to income statuses. Obviously, no extant
data-set includes well-measured indicators of more than one-half of these
variables on the same cohort; indeed in none has income been measured any
later than age 32. It is well known that parameters may be misestimated in
models, which are misspecified due to missing variables and due to data that
are not wholly valid and reliable. Until all of the variables called for
by the theory are measured properly and are brought together in the analysis ---------------------------- - --- - -- --- - --- ---- - -- ---- --
of single data-sets drawn upon to permit generalization to definable cohorts,
studied longitudinally~until this happens it will be impossible to provide
a full test of the social psychological position.
We have already touched on a second point. But it's worth repeating.
In none of the three analyses focused upon herein has it been possible to
explain much variance in income status, in contrast to educational and
occupational status. This is probably partly due to the lack of income-
specific antecedent variables. But there is evidence that income differentials
may still be unstable among men as young as these. Featherman (1971) and
Kelley (1973), as well as Haller and Spenner (1977), have shown that the
(
-19-
income effects of educational and occupational status are much greater
among middleaged men (say, 45) than among' men who are younger. A complete
analysis would take this fact into account. There are some other caveats
here, too. Some of the "human capital" researchers tell us to expect 1 inear
effects of experience (itself a set of variables) and of quadratic effects
of both education and experience.
Third, the apparent differences in the ways the social psychological
variables function in the different samples used herein might be due to
misspecifications and problems of measurement inherent in the available
data-sets. Until more complete data-sets can be obtained there is no way
to determine whether this is true. Even if a full test strongly supports
the theory in that it yields a complete explanation of status inheritance
in which the internal mechanisms are consistent among samples and in that
it yields consistent estimates of "non-transmitted ll mechanisms of status
attainment, it sti 11 might be possible that the social psychological theory
would provide an incomplete, though perhaps entirely valid, explanation
of the status attainment process. We say this for two reasons. First,
in addition to ability and performance, nearly all the status isomorph
variables appropriate to educational and occupational status attainment
are present and relatively well measured in all these samples. Yet the
estimates of educational and occupational status variance accounted for by
them ranges from a low of R2 = .42 (Alexander, occupation) to a high of
R2 = .62 (LC, education). If the theory is correct, adding the missing
variables will do little to raise this because they should be highly
correlated with the variables already present. Furthermore, in a separate
analysis of the LC data (Otto, 1973) it was found that measurement unrel i-
abi 1 ity does not attenuate the Iitruell coefficients of determination very
-20-
much, certainly not more than about 10 percent. Unless researchers posit
a rather high degree of random variation (indeterminancy) in this sector
2 of human behavior, about on the order of A ~ .30, they may well be faced
with the need to develop a new set of concepts and measures to be coupled
to those of the social psychological theory in order to provide a complete
explanation of educational and occupational status attainment.
Fourth, a distinction has been drawn (Woelfel and Haller, 1971) between
significant-others who are models, in that they exemplify a status to a
person, and those who are definers, in that--directly or indirectly--they
tell one which statuses are more, and which are less, appropriate for him.
In this paper the variables by which both exert their influence have been
referred to as the "status indications" provided by one's significant-others.
Implicit in the theory is the hypothesis that one of the mechanisms by
which parents transmit their statuses is by exempl ifying them to their
offspring; to some extent they serve as status models as well as status
definers. In other words, the theory holds that the very statuses which
are (to a degree) transmitted function social psychologically as status
examples. But whether and to what degree it is the parents' model ing of
their own statuses function which serves as the initial mechanism by which
their statuses are partially transmitted to their offspring is a question
which has hardly been raised, much less answered. There are other possi-
bilities. These concern parental statuses as resources control 1 ing dif-
ferential access to status attainment resourCes. In addition to model ing
their statuses and to communicating their expectations, educated parents
may teach cognitive skills which are especially useful in educational attain-
ment, and they may be more effective than others at arranging educational
opportunities for their children. Parents in high prestige occupations
(
-21-
may also teach their children how to take unusual advantage of their
occupational opportunities, or may be more effective than others at con
triving high status occupational alternatives for them. Wealthier parents
may have more skill at making money, which they can pass on to the'ir
offspring. Or they may be able simply to give more money to them. Of
course, a parent who is high on one variable might, therefore, have a
resource available to enhance his offspdng's attainment in another. Money
can buy an education, at least to some extent; occupational prestige might
be translated into educational pull; educated parents might have a better-
and communicable--understanding of how to launch a son's successful career,
etc. Future research should begin to try to identify and to separate the
status inheritance components which are due 1) to model ing, 2) to the
cognitive and structural resources a status variable provides for attainment
regarding that variable itself, and 3) to the resources that parental status
on a given dimension prov,idesfor their chi ldrens' attainment. At this point,
however, it is not at all just how to carry out such an analysis, if indeed
it can be done at all.
Finally, it should be recalled that every major stratification theorist
(e.g., Marx, Weber, Sorokin and various contemporary writers) has posited
the existence of status dimensions which differ from education, occupa
tional prestige, and income in important ways. Most are more inclusive.
(For example, income is often thought to be part of an economic dimension.)
Also, each includes, under ,various names and terms, a dimension v,hich could
be called "pol itical influence." Assuming that such thinkers were or are
perceptive observers, status attainment researchers must sometime come to
grips with this and other as yet unfamiliar dependent status variables.
Some of these may be completely new, which others will be different, or
more inclusive, forms of those already under study.
/---"-I ,
'" '" '" p. ''-"{
Table 1. StandardIzed RegressIon CoeffIcIents and CoeffIcIents of DetermInation for Antecedents of SocIoeconomIc AttaInments (DecImals Omitted).
' , "-"c
a VarlaQles X4 X5 X6 X
7 X8 X9
XI-FOCC *171 042 *135 059 *111; 038
X2-FED 073 -003 *129 -005 *093 *105
X3-MED *120 *176 071 *11;6 051 031
X4- MA *1;31 *107 *186 069 *11;1;
XS-AP *167 *237 *321 *296
X6- PEDE *221 *221;
X7-FEDP *178 *171
R2 082 263 169 203 475 451;
ax father's occupation; X2 father's education; X3 mother's education; X4 I mental ability; X5 acaaemic performance; X6 parents' educational en
couragement; X7 friends' educational plans; Xa educational aspirations; X9 occupational aspirations.
*Absolute value of coefficient is at least twice as large as the standard error and the relatIonship Is defined as statistically signIficant.
TABU a , I, Itandardhcd Rcgreuton Coefficients and Multiple Correlatlon I!' !' Coefficients ror the l:cl"Ur:l-lvc StC"uc:tuul Ho<.lcb \If Education, " :.
Occupation and Earnings (Decimals Omitted). ; Ii • , / 'nbblu liD EDUCATION
11 [
~-roc '176 *UO *100 ·076 OlD , . . ,: 'a-FED 0143 *UO 0121 'U2 062 i
'a-I1ED 12U '184 ·091 059 035 i' 'c ~:? \
'.", ',-,,\ '. h 14-110\ '325 '112 062 012
~-AP '49) 0429 '266 11 ;' , .1 ~-rEDE 0015 .. on
ji Il-FED• '22' om
Ia-EDAS' '3« ill
" -. '~
a,-ocAS' 0111 :1 "1\
h r 184 281 46~ 511 619 II 'u OCCUPATION ;~
~-roc 0242 -193 11174 °lSl 0122 -Ill
'a-FED 060 039 040 029 -012 -035
'l-IIED ow' 091 012 -022 -039 -052
I,-HA "287, -095 050 003 -002
IS-AP 1448 °387 ·261 *160
I,-PEOP 090 -002 014 L j:I '-,
ll-rEOE 190 *11& 067 I , ',-EDAS' "166 036
',-OCAS' '211 *181 &
liD-ED ·378 • .1 1 ,
&2 UI 194 341 313 449 503 l J j
'u EARNINGS ' . :1 t , .'
~-roc 060 038 034 017 006 002 -011 ~ j
la-fEO 068 038 . 039 030 016 007 011 -1
'''--. '18! '170 °lS2 *ll1 *U5 *120 "*12S ~,~
'4.:nA. "130 086 058 044 042 042
~-AP 102 064 022 -019 0037
\-.EDE 074 244 050 04'
'r-nD' 0108 084 063 056
la-mAS. 073 020 016
x,-ocAS. 064 037 017
~o-ED -134 113
'tl-OCC 110 .. . . ,2 059 075 083 099
'.~ 106 115 121 .i
·X father'. occupation; X~ rather's education; XJ
=other's edQc~cion: X, lIental .biUt,., X) aCilde,"1c perform.mee; X p,lrcnts' education encounu;ernent: 17 hlend. educational plollM; X1\ e~uc;lttonal a!lrir.:Jtlonl'li X, K~upllt1onal •• pit.tions: XlO educ~tlon: XLI occup~tloni ~l2 eil~nln~~.
tAbtolute value of coerrfci~nt Is ftt le~~t tvlce aft Inr.c ae t ... tftnd.rd arrot .nd the rdatlon1l11p 111 r:!l'r lncJ ~, ~t .. t laUe", 11 dr-ntf (cane.
tEstimates are made following the procedure proposed by Alvin and Rauser (1975) for interpreting causal theories in 8ociology. Zero-order cOl"l'elations for the Wisconsin data are rep'lrted 1n Sevell and Hauser (1975:93). Zero-order correlations for the Quality of Educational Opportunity data were kindly provided by ,Karl Alexander of John ~opklns University. •
·"'}lc.dHicd Len'a\07ce County estimates which assume the Wlscon!Oin Ilssociations for family income and teacher educatioQ encouragement.
Undlcates that the relationships do not arrear in'the Len3wce County data.
-Ind!c;ltcs that the '(atill effect is not t>tatistic:ally si&n1flcant, therefore indirect erfects are not cal~ulated; iHiiU\A@i,Jl.iRAM4I;:;O t *"''''& iilQiY_.iPJ.a_oo;,hR
{
-", -c_ -c, -e,
Table II. 2 a Coefficients of Determination (R ):LC, WIS, and EEO Samples
Status Variables R2
LC WIS EEO
Education -, _~.6~ -~ .5~ --, .45 -, -c -c_ " -, -, , -, -~ '0 -~ - ,
Occupation .51, .113 .42
Earnings .12 .08 .12
aSee Table 1 and the section on Data, Variables, and !1ethods for a description of the regressors. Education is included among the latter when occupation is the dependent variable; both of the former are included among the regressors for earnings.
-, -"
~: tti 1 t'·
'" 11 1 \
,'1
j , .. :j "!"
r 7t ,. 1_ *t ( t
_.
Vnlablu '
x ... rocc ~-FED X -HE:D )I.:-PlNC
. X ·HA X·-A.P xf -TEO! ~-PEVE X -FEDII'
.'X1.EDASP X~-OCASP X -ED X!-OCC ,Xn:£AR:t
X S.D.
X -roce . ~-FED • X -~IED
x:-rlNC x ·}tA X"-AP Xf_TEDE
, ~-PEOE .1 -fEDi' "xl_t:DA.S'
'i-OCASP "XL-ED
X -DCC X:1l_ EARlI , .
X S.D.
~Il-r')cc
,:~-fEO X -~IED x~-rINe
,x -:-iA X8 _AP ·Xf_TEOt '~-rEO& Xl-HOP
'X -EOASP ~-OCASP
"Xl-ED x -ocr. Xlll-EAIU'
n X
S.D.
439 287 448 181 III 154 261 219 266 242 290 2.8 083
33.6S 22.5.
43B
410 206 1)8 1)0 268 273 2B. 26. ]2' 2'4 212
U.ll 20.%3
.61 311 , 241 199 , 276 19. 349 285 311 30. 140
32.64 21. 78
520 321 246 154 150 24B 237 270 227 306 252 082
10.11 3.02
466 317 229 IS4 263 2S1 307 232 346 296 243
10.)5 3.71
547 , 217 206 , 288 191 353 ". 346 240 177
2.27 1.]5
247 205 140 140 2)1 210 257 227 273 215 004
19.51 2.88
392 204 10. 1)1 216 211 267 III 260 112 180
10.9' 2.88
, 212 279 , 253 "7 345 31S 356 23] 230
2.56 1.25
tllSCONStN 1
X. If
178 121 551 173 347 241 345 23) 2B8 275 426 236 42B 273 446 231 316 In 16)
6500.00 100.67 3158.50 14.54
415 3U 307 '50 .60 512 414 159
96.01 13."
417 319 396 .47 522 399 477 406 '72 331 . 3511 113 121
•. U4 .6011 .497 .4as
493 455 474 360 091
.361
.480
IQUALITY 0' EDUCAtiONAL OPPORtuNITY 2
3\7 228 190 3" 314 143 249 346 253 251
.1097
.UZ9
, , , , I I I I I , I
471 107 250 260 303 281 460 3S1 071
7.81 3.95
218 3" 305 391 371 505 394 091
2.7:l .88
LENAW&£ COUNTY
478 , 263 341 400 4t.1 419 )., 163
20.68 5.14
, 29' )77 ]4' 512 621 5)'
'zoo 2.0]
.84
377 305 292 235 221 219 075
1.68 .60
I , , , , , , , ,
.36
.88 S%1 389 350 377 '18 309 366 196 122
2.30' 5.10 .65 1.60
341 .65 ." 361 325 191
6.37 1.72
." .44
.87 '13 221
2.50 1.96
755 656 473 178
.381
.487
.442
580 476 190
49.38 26.51
485' 39J • 388 364
158 117
2.02 59.88 .83 24.98
679 700 6J' 554 "0 255 248
1.15 J6.1' 1.26 12.56
* \Te use the indlc3to(!t 1n 3 gcnerlc lien."'" and do not lml"1y tdenticAI opcr.'1tlondl%.1tlons.
623 20'
13.30 1.72
610 212
14.72 2.65
e58 291
n.'8 2.S0
211 43.30 23.41
228
U7 260
53.5% 11303 %3.53 4554
265
.7.05 U" 25.21 543
,', FOCC - father'lI OCCUPlltlOR: FP.D .. father'lI educntlon; HtO - mother'a educ3t1on; PUle - pllrcntlll tncoPlle: MA - 1Iu!lnt:al ablllt)'; "'F - aC.3dernlc: per(orlllo'mc=e; 1'F.I)f: • tc.u:her's educ1ltlon em:ollr;ly,cmcnt: PEllE. p"rents education encouracelncnt: FEDE • frleR'''' cdueatlon:.\ pl",n". EOAsr • c,lue.3ttulI.ll .·utrlrtltll.n!l; OC':M,('I • ucc:u(,,<ltlun'11 o.'plrntloll'l. ED" C'lllIctitlon: oce - occurtttlon: £,\jUl •• .3enln",,,.
,~l \U'Icon·,Ln c:orrel.ltlon4. 1'1""14 1ln,1 .t:tn.!.Irri ,I"vhtIUII:J IIrtl t'rpllrtr.d, tn SI!1.I[!11 Qo.1 1I.1'Hscr (197S:9)). "_",,,_,"~.,~~,,,,~ ,ov~~"~,~,,~, •. hLtLL~,1JLL:~,~.,.,,L.~.J;:,~~_!~:L~~~L~~~,,,~,'J,"I~~~.\!-.ttL .. ,f"!J,~.,L~:t~!J.,~.:l;L·,,,,t:'"t:.J.t!~L,,!rJ ... ~~.L1..t.'.LvJ."JJ.:!.J,:L~J.J:.t!~L~~J.~,t!L!!J!.tU.~ ......... '!.r:.!.IJtJ.~te.:Lb1LJ'"JJ:..I ... ~J_~~J .. ~.!l~_f: ..•. ,< '><"WA.~""~.'~'''''._'
STATUS ORIGINS
FATHER'S OCCUPATIONAL STATUS
FATHER'S EDUCATIONAL STATUS
MOTHER'S EDUCATI ONAL STATUS
r;ARENTs:1 * IlARNING~
MENTAL ABILITY ( IQ)
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (GPA)
Employed by Sewell and Hauser
,
SIGNIFICANT OTHERS' INDICATIONS
PARENTS' EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS
(ENCOURAGEMENT)
FRIENDS' EDUCATIONAL I LLUSTRAT ION.S
(ASP IRATI ONS)
roCCUPAT IONAil EXPECTATIONS
12F PARENTS .J !OCCUPAT I ONAU
ASP I RAT IONS l2.f FR I ENDS J fiNCOME .,
EXPECTATIONS ~ DEFINERSJ .
rlNCOME -,. ASPIRATIONS ~ MODELS .J
''',"''~''·'h''_·"'
STATUS ASPIRATIONS
EDUCATIONAL ASP IRATI ONS
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS ASPIRATIONS
.s'
STATUS ATTAI NMENTS
EDUC" ,- OCCUP
\'
;
INCOME
"" '1 '~
\
Table I. Standardized Regression Coefficients and Coefficients of Determination for Antecedents of Socioeconomic Attainments (Decimals Omitted).
a VarlaQles X4 X5 X6 X
7 X8 X9
Xl-FOee *171 042 *135 059 *114 038
X2-FED 073 -003 *129 -005 *093 '~l 05
X3-MED *120 *176 071 *146 051 031
X4-MA *431 *107 *186 069 *144
XS-AP *167 *237 *321 *296
X6- PEDE *221 '~224
X7-FEDP *178 ,~ 171
R2 082 263 169 203 475 454
ax father's occupation; X~ father's education; X3 mother's education; X4 1 mental ability; X5 acaaemic performance; X6 parents' educational en
couragement; X7 friends' educational plans; X8 educational aspirations; X9 occupational aspirations.
*Absolute value of coefficient is at least twice as large as the standard error and the relationship is defined as statistically significant.
tABLE 2
Standardized Regression Coefficients and Multiple Corrdation Coefficients (0[, the I:c\'ur'slvc Structural ~Iodel:l of Education,
Occup.Uon and Earnings (Decimal, Omitt~).
Variables * X10 EDUCATION
~-FOC *176 *120 *100 '016 030
Xz-FED *143 "120 *121 *112 062
X,-IIED *223 *184 *091 059 035
X4-MA *325 *112 062 012
's-AP *U5 *429 *266
~-lEDE 0075 -00\1
~-FEDP ·226 "m Xa-EDASl "344
x,-cJCAS. *178
12 184 281 46~ 513 619
~l OCCUPATION
~-roc *242 *19-3 *114 ·151 "122 -'111
Xz-FED 060 039 040 029 -012 -035
X,-1IEIl *125 Oil 012 -022 -039 -052
I,-MA *287, "095 050 00) -002
15-AP *'48 "387 --261 *160
X,-PED' 090 -002 014
Z7-FEDE 190 *118 067
I.-EDAS' *166 036
I,-OCASP "248 *181
11O-ED *378
.. 2 U8 194 341 383 449 503
~2 EARNINGS
~-roc 060 038. 034 017 006 002 -011
Xz-FED 048 038 . 039 030 016 007 011
. X,-1IEIl . *185 *170 "152 111131 "125 *120 ··12S
X4~ *130 086 058 044 042 042
's-AP 102 064 022 -019 -037
~-PED£ 074 244 050 049
~-FEO' *108 084 063 056
,,-EDAS. 073 020 016
',-cJCAS' 064 037 017
'10-ED *154 113
"zl-OCC 110
12 059 075 08) 099 106 115 121
* X father'. occupation; X2 father's education; X, mother'a eda~atlon; X, lIental abll1ty; X) aeademic pe['(onnance; X p.licnts' education encouragement; %, friends edu~&tlonal plans. XA e~uc,1tlonal asp! r",Uon!'l; X9 "~up"t!onal •• plr.tlons; X10 educntlon: XLI occupntJoni Xl2 earnJn~~.
tAb.olute value of eoerrtcicnt is ~t lea&t tvJce 8ft Inrgc _& the .tand.rd I!I't'OI'
end the rel4tlon~blp 1a d.-f.tnc'" .:IS ~tRthUc"it, eir.nlficant.
TABLE 3
P,oportian of Total Effects Expl~ined Cnocksround Socioeconomic Stntu9 Indlcctors cn Socioeconomic AttainIllcnts) by lntct'venins Variolbles in the Wlsconsfn. Equ311t)' of Educational Opportunity
and Lcn3'Wee County Samples"'" (Percentage 5.1&n9 Omitted).
EDUCA!10N, DEPENDENT VARIABLES
OCCUPATION
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES gQ LC (LC)*'
EARNINGS
EEO 1& (LC)"
FA!HER'S OCCUPATION via. mental ability 15 Academic performance 07 signiIicant other influence 29 aspirations 12 educa.tion occupation
TOTAL INDIRECT EFFECTS ~
FA!HER'S EDUCATION via. m~ntDl ability 39 academic performance -02 significant-other influence 18 aspirations 07 education occupation
TOTAL INDIRECT EFFEC!S ~
~OtHER'S EDUCATION vi.: mental ability 26 academic performance 06 signficant other influence 25 aspirations 15 education occupation
TOTAL um [RECT EFFECTS n 'AHIL'l INCmfE via:
mental ability 23 academic performance 02 significant other influence 36 aspirations 17 education occupation
TOTAL INDIRECT EFFECTS -ys
07 32 -01 11
21 14 12 26
48 16 20 -01 02 06 04 35
43 14 24 05
18 39 17 11
, , f g
(36) (19) (04) (29)
(16) (00) (03) (37) ,
(17) (41) (14) (11)
(17) (-09)
(36) (16)
11 05 17 07 16
54
43 -02 16
, 07 22
8&
31 07 24 12 18
92
25 02 31 13 13
84
05 20 -01 08
19 10 13 12 25 05
61 54
30 15 02 03 10
60
-,
(20) (11) (04) (11) (03)
(49)
27 (28)
53 19 42 05 12
132
63 (68) 27 (24) 14 (14) 10 (12)
142 (144)
f , I , #
g
(19) (-ll)
(40) (16) (20)
(84)
07 01' 02 04 02 01
17
-01 00 12 02 lS 11
38
-os 03 01 01 OS 09 II
-06 02 13 01 03
-03 09
,--
os 10 n' 03 03
-03 II
# I # , ,
-f
#l:Estlmates are made following the procedure proposed by Alwin and Hauser (1975) for interpreting causal theories in sociology. Zero-order correlations for the Wisconsin date. are rep"rted in S,ewell and Hauser (1975:93). Zero-order correlations for the Quality of Educational Opportunity data were kindly provided by Karl Alexander of John ~opklns University .
• "'NCld1[icd Len;].vce County estlmat~s which assume the Wiscon!;in associations for family income and teacher education encouras,ement.
Undicates that the relationships do not appear in-the Lenawee County data.
-lnd!c."ltes that the 'total effect is not f>tatht:f.cally sitnlf1cant, therefore indirect effects fire not calculated.
(08) (11) (12) (04) (03)
(-031 (34)
(07) (-02)
(17) (05) (07)
-lm. (34)
•
Table Ii. . 2 a
Coefficients of Determination (R ):LC, HIS, and EEO Samples
Status Variables R2
LC WIS EEO
Education .62 .54 .45
Occupation .51 .43 .42
Earnings .12 .08 .12
a See Table 1 and the section on Data, Variables, and Hethods for a description of the regressors. Education is included among the latter when occupation is the dependent variable; both of the former are included among the regressors for earnings.
"rrroM!X
Zero .. order (orrdatl"n·,. H':;lns lin-I Sund.ud ne'll .. tlon~ (or Iftdlclltou'" U!'Ied In Eltl.~tln, Struct~r.l Equation Hudeh In tlU! Vl!!Il,;UII"ln. Equ.,\Uty of I::duc .. ttullal Opp~rtunlt1 end Lenavee Count7 $tudlea
(Decimal. Om1tt~d In Corr¥l.t1on~).
"ISCONSIN 1
Yarlablu ,
X. ... X Xd X • X, X .... Xl Xl x,. Xl X • S. e •
X .. rocc ~-F£D 439 X ... HED 281 no )I.:-p INC 448 321 241 X ... }IA 181 246 205 118 X·-AP 131 154 140 121 5" X!-TED& 154 150 140 113 341 4U ,,"-PEVE 261 248 2Jl 241 345 3U 431 X -FEDP 21. 231 210 233 288 307 339 398 X~-EDASP 266 210 251 215 426 450 441 522 493 Xk-OCASP 242 221 221 23" 428 460 39. 471 455 755 X -ED 290 306 213 213 446 512 406 ,,2 474 656 '80 x~-occ 26" 252 215 2Jl 37. 414 3ll . 358 360 '13 476 623 Xn-EAR:t 083 QB2 064 113 163 15' 113 121 091 118 190 204 211
i 33.63 10.11 19.'1 6'00.00 100.67 96.01 .444 .608 .361 .387 49.38 13.30 0.30 7" S.D. 22.5. 3.02 2.88 3158.50 14.5' ll.6. .491 .488 .480 .481 26.51 1.72 23.41 260
!QUALtTY or EDUCATIONAL OPPORtuNITY 2
X -FOCC ~-F£D 438
·X -~IED x~-rINC 410 466 392 x -~IA 206 317 204 317 X1!_AP 138 22' 104 228 411 Xf_TEDE 130 154 131 190 107 218 ~-PEDE 268 263 216 354 ,50 354 371 X -FEDP 213 lSI 211 314 260 305 305 436 X1_EDASP 284 307 261 343 303 3'1 292 488 521 ~-OCASP 28' 232 131 24. 2Bl 311 235 38. 350 .442
x -ED 324 348 260 346 480 505 221 311 418 485 393 xl_ocC 294 296 112 253 351 3.4 219 30. 366 . 386 364 610
x: -EARll 212 243 180 251 011 091 015 196 122 158 117 %12 228
X 43.3' 10.36 10.94 .1097 1.81 2.12 1.68 2.30· 5.10 2.02 59.88 14.12 ".n 11303
S.D. 20.23 3.71 2.88 .8529 3.95 .86 .60 .65 1.60 .83 24.98 2.66 23.53 4554
LENAWEE COUNTY
~ _r'Jcc ~-FED 461 X -~IED 3ll 547 X~-PUlC I I , X-!'ii\ 241 217 212 Xtl_AP 19. 206 279 I 418 Xf_TED! I I I , I , ~-PEDE 216 288 253 I 26) 292 , x -FEDP 194 192 261 I 343 317 I 341 X~-EDASP 349 353 345 I 400 542 I 465 452 "k-OCASP 285 329 315 I 4'il 512 , 455 444 679 x -EO 311 346 356 I 419 621 I 361 481 100 83. xl_ocr. 308 240 233 I 362 539 I 325 413 554 510 658 Xll\ -EARlf 140 171 230 I 183 200 n I 191 221 255 248 291 265
X 32.64 2.27 2.56 , 20.68 2.03 I 6.37 2.50 1.15 36.19 13.48 41.05 "55 S.D. 21. 78 1.35 1.25 I 5.14 .84 I 1. 72 1..6 1.26 12.56 2.50 2).21 543
.. \Ie use the Indicators In 4 generic ~en~e cnd do not imply identical ope rat lonallz.1t 10ns.
I roce - lather'l! Occupi'ltlon; FF.O .. fathe-r'" educi'ltton; MEn .. mother's educ3tlon; PUle - pnrental lncome: HA .. merlt.,t abUlty; AI' - ae3demlc pcrform.lnf:e: Tf.UI': ... tc.u::her's educl1tlon encour"p,cmcnti PEDE" parents e(hl~;Jtlon encourllcement: FEOt .. h-len,ls-educntion:tt pto::mA~ (mASr .. c,luc.1tlnn .• t :"'plrRtll'fI!J; Or.I\::;1' .. uccupatLo,,"l, ollplrlltLon'l; ED - ('ll\lcOlt10n. DCC" occ::ur:ltton: L\iW .. 8.:lrnln,;a.
I1Jl'Jclll\'lln co'("rci.ltt"n". 1'\,' In" :\n,1 !It:ln,l.lf<l ,!evL,t 1<1f1:J tl'("() fl'purtl!d tn SI~l.Il!ll flo,1 11,111:1(1'(" (t?75:9J) • ;! r ,.,,~ ! •. , .,' " , '. !.'" "',,,,I! I r"l ,! I",,·, ,-.,·,n" "t .,,:,! \f! .! :'1 'I' t, '" .... ' r,! k
STATUS ORIGINS
FATHER'S OCCUPATIONAL STATUS
FATHER'S EDUCATIONAL STATUS
MOTHER'S EDUCATIONAL STATUS
r;ARENTS~ * l!ARNING~
MENTAL AB I LlTY (I Q)
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (GPA)
Employed by Sewell and Hauser
SIGNIFICANT OTHERS' INDICATIONS
PARENTS' EDUCAT I ONAl EXPECTATI ONS
(ENCOURAGEMENT)
FRIENDS' EDUCAT IONAl IllUSTRATIONS
(ASPI RATIONS)
raCCUPATIONALl EXPECTATIONS
12F PARENTS .J f'OCCUPAT I ONA71 ASP I RAT! ONS
\.QJ FR I ENDS J IINCOME .., EXPECTATIONS
l£.F DEF I NERS J f/NCOME -, ASP I RATIONS
12.: MODELS .J
STATUS ASPIRATIONS
EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS ASPIRATIONS
STATUS ATTAINMENTS
EDUC OCCUP
INCOME
STATUS ORIGINS
FATHER'S OCCUPATIONAL STATUS
FATHER'S EDUCATIONAL STATUS
MOTHER'S EDUCATIONAL STATUS
f;ARENTS';1 " l!ARN I NG~
MENTAL ABILITY (I Q)
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (GPA)
* Employed by Sewell and Hauser
SIGNIFICANT OTHERS' INDICATIONS
PARENTS' EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS
(ENCOURAGEMENT)
FRIENDS' EDUCATIONAL ILLUSTRATIONS
(ASPI RATIONS)
raCCUPAT IONALl EXPECTATIONS
1.2 F PARENTS .J f'OCCUPAT I ONA"J ASPIRATIONS
l.2.f FR I ENDS J !"iNCOME -,
EXPECTATIONS l£.F DEF I NERS J !INCOME ., ASPIRATIONS
1.2! MODELS .J
STATUS ASPIRATIONS
EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS ASPIRATIONS
STATUS ATTAINMENTS
EDUC OCCUP
INCOME
Table I. Standardized Regression Coefficients and CoefficIents of Determination for Antecedents of Socioeconomic Attainments (Qeclmals Omitted).
a VarIables
XI-FOCC
X2- FED
X3-HED
X,,-HA
X5-AP
X6- PEDE
X7-FEOP
R2
*171
073
*120
082
042
-003
*176
*"31
263
*135
*129
071
*107
*J67
169
059
-005
*146
*186
*237
203
*114
*093
051
069
*321
*221
*178
475
038
*105
031
*144
*296
*224
*171
ax father's occupation; X2 father's educatIon; X3 mother's education; X4 I mental abIlIty; X~ acaoemlc performance; X6 parents' educational en
couragement; X7 frIends' educational plans; X8 educational aspiratIons; "- X9 occupational aspl rations.
*Absolute value of coeffIcient Is at least twice as large as the standard error and the relatIonshIp Is defIned" as statistIcally sIgnIfIcant. -i
/
/
Icuftftlbc41 l.crellt_ Ceef~tcl"CI _ ... 2tutu,le Cond_el .. c..fUcl .. el fol' 'he I:.c:nr.lwe $ecuc'ucal Htldd •• f 14 •• ,,".
0cc:.&M"" aM leniqa (Dec ..... o.Utn).
,_rt ... l.,- lao I/IUCATIOO
~-0,,, 0120 OlIO 001' I,. .
'z- °lU °120 0121 oW liZ
'z- °IU 0", 00" ost m
.. - om ow - m
a,- OUS 012' om ...... .. 7S -4M~
~- - om .. - .,.. .. - -,I III ,~ SU "'
~ OCXUI'Ano:l
.. - 0161 °If] *114 °"1 oW °lU
ra- 010 m ". on -ou -on
ra- ow 011 012 -012 -Glf -oS2
-.- OIn ., OSO GO] -001
.,- - °Jl7 olll OlIO
....... tit - '" ~- Ito oU' H7
Ia- 0111 OJI )
ON °111 .,-'1'-
on.
,I ut 1M '" JI] '" so,
~ lAIIItllCS
~- 010 OJI. OJI 017 ... OIl -011
ra- M OJi OJ, OSO 011 0117 011 .~ ,~
'~-. ow ·"'0 °lSl °Ul oUS 0120 ·'U' r .... 01Jl OM OSi on 061 "I
a,- &OJ OM ou -on -oll ....... • '7' IW OSO '" ~-
0101 OM H] OSi /
.. - 071 010 Oil -,'
.. - 1M Oll 017
lao .... 0156 W
'u- 12 •.
~ OS, 075 01' ott 1M W. 121
.' ::. ,.t ..... •• Gee_p.ttOtl; 11 heMI", duc.,IOft; , ..,th.r1 .. ··c4..-.. uon;', _til .. lit,; I) .c .... lc '.I'ro~ne.; '2 ,~re.t.' edul~46-.ncowr.1 ••• nt: ~fd"'" '.ucI" ... l ,t..I; III .•. uc.tloul .. "lr.1ltlOft!'; " .c:~U'Mll
IrIU",: "0 "ItC"Clan; Xu ttCCUJ.1iUOft_ lU •• cnltlU •
.... l.c •• 81 •• ·.1 C*f'tftd.nt t. Ie I .... , l"lci: •• lArae •• t .. et~ .... Uhr·
... Ih .... ulat.lJiuht __ ... .ta ... II,Hnd ..... _'" . !I,,.U .. I.KA.i..h .11.e.n.lUu.r:.
,:" ,
-, f' , , \
'",O~tlCHI of 'foul Ethct. Ioopl"tt... (b~ hdoaCCHlOlIIU ___ ~tou .. Sodn_oa1e And ...... u) 117 Inu,,,,,,u; va"hlo1e. '" tU Iftn_iia, Eq....uc, 'd ~ .~'"
an4 L_o eo .... '" kapk.- (Ii .. ,,-.. 51 .... ~. \.
DUENDEm' VMlMLQ, , ElIUCATIOM ' OCCIIPAllON ' IWU1IlIC.
IIlDEP!IIDDIT VAlt!AILQ m m 1& (Le)·· WIS m 1& JW!!' l!!! m 1& Q.Cl ••
rATHE~'S OCCUPATION ylo. .encal abl11C1 15 07 32 (36) U OS 20 (20) -01 academlc p.~fo~.nc. 07 -01 11 (19) OS -01 ' 01 (11) - 00 -.1enlIlc.nt oth •• lnf1u .. ca 29 21 14 (O~) 17 19 10 (O~) 12 - -a.p1raclonl 12 12 26 (29) 07 13 12 (11) 02 educaci!,D 16 as OS !03) 15 ~ occupacion
6I 39 1.1 11 "'"-
10TAL INDIUCl ErrEctl mr- S4 61 ,. mr 31
" 'ATHER'S EOUCATI0R ylo'
... ncAl ab1liC, 39 41 11 (16) 43 30 - - -0 • ~ -academ1c porlo~mane. -02 20, -01 (00) -02 15 - - - 03 - -Ilenlllcant-other influ .... II 02 06 (03) 16 02 , - - 01 - -a'pireclonl 07 04 35 (37) , , 07 03 - 01 - -education 22 10 -, - - os - -occupacion - - 09 - '-TOTAL INDIUCl EFFEctS 6J 74 -n:, 1m"" -U ""B - - - 1I -
-HOlHER'S EDOCATION 91 •• .... tal .blUt1 26 II (17) 31 27 (21) - o • (01) acadeQic p.rfo~Dc. 06 It (41) , 07 63 (68) .. 10 (11)
.1,nflcant other lDflueaca 2S 17 (14) 24 27 (24) - 11' (12) •• pl~atiQnl 15 11 (11) 12 14 (14) 03 (04) edueatlou II 10 (12~ 03 (113)
occupation -n - ""it (ijj"' '"it - 142 <mr - - '1 ~t IOTAL t:;DIUCl ErrEctl - - - -rAIIILY INCO~IE ylo'
•• ncal abl11ey 23 43 , (17) 2S " , U" 07 -01 , (07)
ac.aderaie p .. r,to~anc. 02 14 , (-09) 02 It , (-11) 01' 02 , (-02) 11anlfleant'othar influence 36 24 , (36) 31 42 , (40) 02 13 , (17) •• piration. 17 OS , (16) 13 0' , (16) 04 01 , (0') edvcatlon 13 12 , (20) 02 03 , (07) occup .. tton
"(i4)' 01 -03 -J -mt TOTAL INDIlECT EITEctI 7i Ii -, "1m ""it m -, -rr "iii 34
.E •• l" •••• ar ... ad. follovina tho ,.ocodu ... ,.opo .. ' 117 Alv1Jt on4 aau ... ~'7S) fo" lnt.~ ... tina cou.al tb •• rl •• 1. locl01 0 e1· Zero-order co ..... l.tlon. for ch. Viseon.in.'ata .r ... e,.,rt.d 1n Sevell and .. au •• r (1975193). Z.ro-o1"'." corl'.]~tion. for the Quality of Educational Opportunlty .ata weI'. kin.ly provided by Karl Alexander of John Wopki~ Univ.rsity. . •• ~I(.dt.rJed Len;s\lc. Cov"t)' e'sCllUitcs whfch ••• u ... the Vi.COR!;in a •• oclaClon. for IA.Ily 1nco •• and t •• ~h.r e'uclcio. ."eoura,e""e"t.
'IndIcates that ttl. relationship. 40 not apr •• " 1n the Lenave. County' 'ata.
-lndJc.;ste. thar the "total effect 1. not "tati.cle.n.' .StAtUcant, therelo.,. lq41 •• ct .rr.ct. are n~t c.lcul.t •••
Table ... Coefficients of Determination 2 (R ):LC, WIS, and EEO Samples a
Status Variables R2
LC WIS £EO
Education .62 .5" ... 5
OccuPation .51 ... 3 ... 2
Earnings .12 .08 .12
~e Table 1 and the section on Data,Variables. and Methods for a description of the regressors. Education is included among the latter when occupation is the dependent variable; both of the fOrmer are included among the regressors for earnings.
/
/
/
! I'
.".
_.
....-. . • ,~"er C4Jpr.a.u .................... f ............ f., ''''e ••• ,.. V" •• I. 1M .... 1.1 ......... ,
.... Ua ~.l .... the ",.c .... , •• ", .. Ut, .1 ~& ..... , 0,,,."-"&" ..... ~ Clwtl, .,...... ,
•• rt.tlo ••• '
: _f'>CC !:.FEO a ... MtD a:,"HC 1-:1.\ ~-., X' .. TEDI ~-.tDl I -FED' .t_£OAI-. S-Oc.so It-£D x .. occ X--EAIUf •
. c-_. -..... ....... ~.~_,.
41t Dr sa '" m I4r ,111 14' 105 PI'
-atcOII1t. 1
I. I,
UI 154 140 nt SSI IS' "0 ItO II' '" IU 141 I" 1)1 1.1 ,., "S II' I,r 110 I" II. JOr I., 270 IS' ZlS u, no 241 211 lZ' n. 621 "0 _ .. 2n
In ... '" 211 2ft 2lt an m 414 .., OIl OM II) 'U ,st n . ., lO.n I,.n lZ.54 '.02 I."
'Soo.OO 100." ".0) )" .. SO ".5' ., .• ,
,. 4'0 ... m 101 nr ZOI II' I" I" 104 ZZI no u. U. 190 2.. In IU n, 27) lSI III )" lat JOr '" ,,, 21t lSI ))1 I" 'I' ,.. 140 ,., It. Itl III ISJ III I" 110 IS • . ".,S 10.lI '0." • lotI 10.2) ).rl I." •• SZ,
'" )11 , Z41 ". , III I,. )" US )U )01 140
,., , , 117 IU 101 '" , , Z" IS) 192 147 )S) )U )It liS
. ,., ". '140 III
, , ., , , , , , ,
471 lOl It, ISO n4 140 JOS JOJ )" 211 )71 "0 SO, n, ". 011 otl
1.11 2.n J.ts .It
.,. , 14) ,., -"I 'I' '02 III
, ztt )I' ,.1 511 61' '" 100
'" '"~ '"~ '" SJI ", 47' '01 472 m m W lit .". .to. .. " ....
'77 JOS "I Itl ".11 U, , .. III )7'
21t '0' 0" Itl
1.... 2." .60 lOIS
I , , I , , ,
,,, .. s ."
'" "S 191
I.
,,, It)
,,, ,,, I,. )10 on •• '1 .410
", ,.. '" ,,. In Ito lOt IU
.,., ".SI
.417 11.51 u.50 U.JO l.n 1).41
511 ISO 441 'II "5' It) )" . ,., '14 110 III IS' III 112
'.lO 1.02 ,.... 16.71 1.10 •• , 2 •• " 1.11
45' .. , 41' 'tl 221
'" JOG ." S,. 110 IS' " •
... Itl It,
'" ItO
i I.D •.
JI." 11.11
u~ 2)0
z.U •. I." 'I." I.IS
, , zo ... S.14
2.0) .14
, , '.)., I.n
t.,. I.ft
I.U ".1' 1.21 12."
n .• ' 2.50
47." lin n.21 . 51'
I. 2 • w. \ta. tlte 1"'4caWM h .- ............... tMIt hptJ 14:cmIHd .~(oJl4tt.« .. tttctft ••
, rocc. - l.the', oC'~ .... .edt.,'. e6tC:&1tOltt HID • _-cht!f.t. ~-«el'li 'im: - ,1lI'f!fttd tnc.N, "' ... ftht .,tllt,.. A' ... ,ac4d-e_lc ,~rto~t .... t.dC'he~·. ~ ... ~ .... ~-t .. l!!I ~ e4uC!atton .ncoyr ....... u reD!. "'t!l'ftfl·.'· .. 1~~I ...... t "t.s".~"l~:_ ~U·_.t. " ...... race-•• ~ • ~~l,l ~#"tt~~i «0 .... C".luc"tioft; ~ • ~r,nt.ft' £Ait" •• oar.lft.: .... ,
I \11'1':01\ '4" ('onet It ItJft". 1IIiJ· ~~ 4D:4 a,,,,.,,1 ,,<I "~,.t'"'._" 4«: f"-t'V'JJ"tfMi $J) ~w.A4'4 {'-'I,r4' 'lh",.,,.~t' (t"7):'J). '2" ,.\.;',\" "., .• \.. ,t·,.···.-!,rl' '. I" ,·'·I-,,·,,!,,!"··"·! "1·'·,11. ! ••• , .. I!.1to."""1-t".\fll.·,,,I .. r.
