Development and Exploration of the Experiences With Classism Scale

http://jca.sagepub.com/Journal of Career Assessment

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/21/1/139The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1069072712450494

2013 21: 139 originally published online 27 June 2012Journal of Career AssessmentMindi N. Thompson and Linda M. Subich

Development and Exploration of the Experiences With Classism Scale

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Career AssessmentAdditional services and information for

http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/21/1/139.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 27, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 6, 2013Version of Record >>

at UNIV HOUSTON on December 9, 2014jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV HOUSTON on December 9, 2014jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jca.sagepub.com/

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/21/1/139

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/21/1/139.refs.html

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/21/1/139.full.pdf

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/06/21/1069072712450494.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

Development and Explorationof the Experiences WithClassism Scale

Mindi N. Thompson1 and Linda M. Subich2

AbstractThe examination of barriers in relation to college students’ vocational choice and development is animportant area of research, but the barrier of classism is relatively underexamined. This may be dueto the deficiencies in measurement, so we describe herein the development of a new measure, theExperiences with Classism scale (EWCS). The EWCS was developed to extend prior qualitativework that highlighted the need to consider experiences with classism in the lives of undergraduatestudents. Results provided initial evidence for the usefulness of the EWCS to measure under-graduate students’ experiences with classism at a personal and systemic level. Across two studies,the EWCS was demonstrated to have high internal consistency reliability, to have a stable factorstructure consisting of two factors, to correlate as expected with relevant demographic variables,and to fit within a nomological network of convergent and discriminant constructs. The EWCS wasalso demonstrated to predict self-reported experiences of depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem,and psychological wellness. Implications for further research and practice are suggested.

Keywordssocial class, classism, experiences with classism, contextual barriers, career development

A key consideration in theories of and research in vocational psychology is how barriers impact an

individual’s vocational process and outcomes. Those barriers may be intrapersonal, interpersonal, or

contextual (Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996). Social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown,

& Hackett, 1994, 2000) has been recognized as one of the first vocational theories to articulate expli-

citly how distal and proximal contextual barriers (and supports) function to shape individuals’ inter-

ests, goals, and actions. Indeed, SCCT’s ‘‘explicit attention to the roles of environmental and other

contextual variables that can support or hinder’’ persons has been recognized as a major strength of

the theory (Gainor, 2006, p. 162).

1Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA2College of Arts & Sciences, The University of Akron, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Mindi N. Thompson, Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1000 Bascom Mall, Madison,

WI 53703, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Career Assessment21(1) 139-158ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1069072712450494jca.sagepub.com

139

at UNIV HOUSTON on December 9, 2014jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jca.sagepub.com


In 2000, Lent, Brown, and Hackett elaborated the roles of contextual barriers and supports in the

context of their theory. They summarized the extant (mostly descriptive) literature on barriers and

offered a more specific temporal model for how personal and societal barriers might impact persons’

decisions and actions. Given the proliferation of empirical research on the role and functioning of

barriers within SCCT, in 2010, a meta-analytic path analysis was carried out and the results were

consistent with the premise that supports and barriers have direct and indirect effects on occupa-

tional choice goals (Sheu et al., 2010).

To date, theory and research in vocational psychology have focused extensively on barriers

related to gender (e.g., Betz, 2005) and race/ethnicity (e.g., Worthington, Flores, & Navarro,

2005), but less attention has been paid to other barriers, including those related to social status or

socioeconomic status (SES). Blustein’s (2006) psychology of working perspective and his related

research agenda is a notable exception to this oversight as he and his colleagues have worked dili-

gently to extend the explanatory power of vocational theories and research to the experiences of an

audience beyond middle- and upper-class college-bound youth. A few other vocational scholars

have begun to attend to social class and classism in empirical research (e.g., Ali, McWhirter, &

Chronister, 2005; Metz, Fouad, & Ihle-Helledy, 2009; Navarro, Flores, & Worthington, 2007;

Thompson & Subich, 2006, 2011), and in a recent conceptual article, Diemer and Ali (2009)

reviewed evidence to support the inclusion of social class and classism as central constructs in voca-

tional development. They pointed to the relative dearth of vocational literature that centralizes class-

related constructs and called for increased attention to the interrelated constructs of social class,

social status, SES, and classism.

Why so Little Research on Social Class and Classism?

The relative paucity of vocational research addressing social class and classism may be partly a

function of inadequate measurement tools. Indeed, Lent et al. concluded in 2000 that the vocational

choice literature would be improved if barriers were assessed in a manner specific to the focus of

individual research projects, and they called for more research on persons embedded in specific eco-

logical contexts such as those defined by race, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Perhaps, these sugges-

tions have been heeded more so in some domains (i.e., racism and sexism) than in others (i.e.,

classism) because well-accepted measures of racism (e.g., schedule of racist events [SRE] by Land-

rine & Klonoff, 1996) and sexism (e.g., the schedule of sexist events [SSE] by Klonoff & Landrine,

1995) exist, but measures of classism are less well developed.

This deficiency in measurement is perhaps not surprising, given that consideration of classism as

a construct in psychological research occurred relatively recently and limited empirical literature on

the role and impact of classism in any context (not just vocational) exists (Liu et al., 2004; Ostrove &

Cole, 2003). Consequently, authors (e.g., Diemer & Ali, 2009; Ostrove & Cole, 2003; Smith, 2005)

have called for greater attention to this variable. For example, in their call for a critical psychology of

social class, Ostrove and Cole noted the need to attend to discrimination as a result of social class

standing (or classism). In response, authors have attempted to delineate the nature of classism and

mechanisms of its operation. Smith highlighted the role of oppression in her definition of classism as

‘‘. . . prejudice plus power: It is an interlocking system that involves domination and control of social

ideology, institutions, and resources, resulting in a condition of privilege for one group relative to the

disenfranchisement of another’’ (p. 688). She contended that although classism can be experienced

by individuals at the high and low end of the stratification hierarchy, only dominant groups in society

have the cultural and institutional power to enforce prejudices via oppression.

In his conceptualization of the social class worldview model (SCWM; Liu, 2001), Liu et al. made

the case for considering the subjective experience of social class, thereby calling for a psychological

study of social class that has been informed by psychological research on race and racism. He

140 Journal of Career Assessment 21(1)

140



conceptualized classism as ‘‘prejudice and discrimination based on social class resulting from indi-

viduals from different perceived social classes’’ (Liu, p. 137). Similarly, Williams (2009) called for

research that explicitly connects a person’s social class identity with experiences of discrimination

resulting from that identity, much the same as sex is connected to sexism and race to racism.

The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to present the development of a new measure of

classism, the Experiences With Classism scale (EWCS) questionnaire, which is rooted in the every-

day prejudice literature (e.g., Feagin, 1991; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). This literature references

the routine encounters with prejudice and discrimination that stigmatized group members (e.g.,

women and non-European American individuals in the United States) face in their daily interactions

(Feagin, 1991; Swim et al., 1998; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). College stu-

dents have been the focus of much of this work and everyday experiences with prejudice have been

demonstrated to relate to outcomes such as decreased well-being and self-esteem and increased anxi-

ety and depression (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001). Rooting the development of the

EWCS in this literature offers a mechanism by which to begin to examine individuals’ experiences

with discrimination resulting from social class.

Experiences With Classism During College

One such everyday context in which classism occurs is college. Indeed, much of the existing

research on classism has relied upon college samples, and researchers (e.g., Langhout, Rosselli,

& Feinstein, 2007; Ostrove & Long, 2007) have argued for the relevance of this work, given that

college serves as a springboard to future educational and occupational pursuits and represents a

transition time during which individuals begin to internalize their identity and have contact with

individuals from differing backgrounds. Indeed, Langhout, Rosselli, and Feinstein (2007) asserted

that

. . . examining issues of class during these transitional phases is especially important because social class

can become more salient when people are around others from different social class backgrounds (Jones,

2003) and when people move from one context to another. (Frable, 1997, p. 147)

In a study with 38 low-income (annual incomes fell below the national poverty line) undergraduate

college students (28 from a state university and 10 from a community college), Ritz and Hyers

(2005) used focus groups to investigate the extent to which participants (76.3% female and 50% Eur-

opean American) faced everyday experiences with classism on their college campus and to examine

the nature of these experiences. Five themes, identified from transcripts of the focus groups using

grounded theory, represented the most common experiences of classism described by participants:

(a) middle-class assumptions emanating from peers, instructors, and administrative staff; (b) insen-

sitive/classist comments; (c) bureaucratic hassles; (d) experiences with others who were flaunting

their higher levels of social class; and (e) experiences of being excluded/avoided by others. Experi-

ences with classism were described by participants as occurring on a regular basis and were per-

ceived to be an integral part of their everyday lives. Participants’ experiences with classism

included blatant and subtle instances, were reported as emanating from strangers and intimates, and

reportedly occurred in both short and long interactions with others. Ritz and Hyers concluded that

three of the types of prejudicial incidents reported by the participants are similar to incidents

reported in the everyday racism literature measured using the SRE (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff,

1996); whereas two types of incidents (i.e., flaunting and bureaucratic hassles) appear to be unique

to individuals’ experiences with classism.

More recently, using a sample of 950 undergraduate students (63% female and 73% European

American) from a ‘‘wealthy, elite, private, liberal arts school,’’ where tuition (including room and

Thompson and Subich 141

141



board) is around $40,000 per year (p. 152), Langhout et al. (2007) developed and tested a behavio-

rally based measure of classism, the Classism Experiences Questionnaire—Academe (CEQ-A). Fac-

tor analysis of the CEQ-A yielded a three-factor model: institutionalized classism (classism due to

organizational structures), citational classism (telling disparaging jokes and making stereotypic

comments about people who are from lower class backgrounds), and interpersonal classism via dis-

counting (behaviors perceived to be intentionally dismissive of an individual’s social class back-

ground such as assuming that a person could afford something). Results also demonstrated that

students’ experiences with classism occurred regularly (base rates of citational, institutionalized, and

interpersonal classism were 58%, 43%, and 80%, respectively).

Langhout et al.’s (2007) research was not without limitations. The CEQ-A was validated on what

appears to be a relatively privileged sample of undergraduates attending a private liberal arts college,

which limits the generalizability of the measure. Further, they do not provide information about

actual levels of capital of their students or the extent to which students identified with more tradi-

tional and objective indices of SES (i.e., income level, self-reported social class category, education,

or occupation of parents). Additionally, the CEQ-A items exclusively assess students’ experiences

with classism on their academic campus with fellow students and professors. Although the CEQ-A

offered a needed analysis of experiences with classism, it is limited in its ability to tap experiences

with classism that may occur in the larger context of the everyday prejudice literature (e.g., Feagin,

1991; Swim et al., 1998). As such, vocational research (and psychological research more generally)

may benefit from the development of an improved measure of classism.

Study 1

Development and Exploration of the EWCS

Concurrent with the efforts of Langhout et al. (2007), we sought to develop a measure of everyday

classism grounded in accepted psychological definitions of classism (Lee & Dean, 2004; Liu, 2002;

Liu et al., 2004) and theories of its operation (Feagin, 1991; Ritz & Hyers, 2005). A behavioral self-

report measure was utilized in order to parallel other measures of everyday prejudice (i.e., the SRE

to assess experiences with racism, Landrine & Klonoff, 1996, and the SSE, Klonoff & Landrine,

1995, to assess experiences with sexism). Item content was also informed by findings from prior

qualitative research on everyday experiences with classism (e.g., Ritz & Hyers, 2005). The purpose

of Study 1 is to describe the development of the EWCS and provide initial evidence of its psycho-

metric properties.

Method

Participants

Undergraduate students (n ¼ 299) were recruited as part of a larger study (Thompson & Subich,

2011) from psychology courses and the campus student union for their participation in the study.

Students attended a large, open enrollment, Midwestern University at which 23% of undergraduate

students attend part-time. The current sample is the representative of the student body at this insti-

tution, where 18% of students are U.S. racial/ethnic minority students, students’ average age is 22

years, approximately 78% receive financial assistance, and many are first-generation college

students.

Most of the participants in our study were women (n¼ 202) and they ranged in age from 17 to 50

years with a mean age of 21.04 (SD¼ 5.04) years. Fifty-five percent of the participants identified as

European American, and 44.5% reported other backgrounds (e.g., 29.1% African American, 5.7%


142



Biracial, 2% Asian American, 2% Hispanic/Latina, 1.7% International Student, and 1% Native

American). Eighty-nine percent of participants identified as exclusively or mostly heterosexual.

Most students self-identified as belonging to the middle class (44%), but 15 participants (5%)

self-identified as belonging to the lower class, 23% self-identified as belonging to the lower middle

class, 24% self-identified as belonging to the upper middle class, and 3% self-identified as belonging

to the upper class. Sixty percent of participants indicated that they were first-generation college stu-

dents. Finally, the annual income level in the household in which they were raised was reported by

24.7% of participants as less than $40,000, by 21% as $40,000–$59,999, by 26.8% as $60,000–

$89,999, and by 22.7% as greater than $90,000.

Development of EWCS Item Pool

The EWCS was designed to tap experiences with everyday classism as defined by the everyday pre-

judice literature (e.g., Feagin, 1991; Swim et al., 1998) and was constructed in two parts. First, items

were modified to parallel the SRE (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996) and the SSE (Klonoff & Landrine,

1995), given the well-documented empirical support for their ability to capture behaviorally based

experiences with racial (e.g., Fischer & Shaw, 1999) and sex (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, 1997) dis-

crimination in U.S. society, respectively. The SRE was originally developed by adapting the SSE to

be relevant to racial discrimination. More recently, the SRE was adapted to assess everyday experi-

ences with ethnic discrimination for members of diverse racial/ethnic groups in the development of

the General Ethnic Discrimination (GED) scale (Landrine, Klonoff, Coral, Fernandez, & Roesch,

2006). For the development of the EWCS, each item from the GED was altered to be reflective

of experiences with discrimination as a result of social class background as opposed to race/ethni-

city. For example, Item 1 of the GED reads ‘‘How many times have you been treated unfairly in the

past year by teachers and professors because of your race/ethnicity?’’ and was altered to read ‘‘How

many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by teachers and professors because of

your social class?’’

Additional items were written to assess the two everyday experiences of classism themes that

were demonstrated to be distinct from everyday experiences with racism (i.e., flaunting and bureau-

cratic hassles) based on Ritz and Hyers’ (2005) qualitative investigation. Items to assess these

domains were generated by reviewing participant responses provided to Ritz and Hyers in their

in-depth interviews. Sample items included: ‘‘How often do you feel like you have been treated dif-

ferently in the past year on the basis of your appearance (clothing, type of bag/purse you carried,

shoes)?’’ and ‘‘How often have you felt frustrated with all of the steps that you had to take with the

financial aid office or banks in order to have access to money for school?’’

A list of 28 potential items (including 17 items adapted from the SRE and 11 new items) was

generated to assess an individual’s experiences with classism. Like the SRE, item responses were

made on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 never happened to you to 6 happened almost

all of the time (more than 70% of the time). These items were reviewed for clarity and completeness

by the two researchers and a group of three counseling psychology faculty members and one coun-

seling center psychologist. Next, two undergraduate students (not involved with the research team)

reviewed the items for readability and their adequacy to capture experiences with classism. After

each round of reviews, only minor changes in the wording of items were made.

Results

Given the novelty of the EWCS and the lack of an a priori empirical basis for specifying the number

of factors or items’ patterns of factor loadings (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999),

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify underlying latent factors from the 28 items in


143



the EWCS so as to evaluate its construct validity. Analyses were conducted using principal axis fac-

toring with an oblimin rotation (given the assumption that any set of latent factors would reflect dif-

ferent aspects of the superordinate construct of experiences with classism). Three criteria were used

to determine the number of factors to be extracted for the final factor solution: eigenvalues greater

than 1.0 (Kaiser criterion), Cattell’s scree test, and the interpretability of the solution, using a factor

loading cutoff of .32 (as suggested by Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Four factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and together they accounted for 63.13% of the var-

iance. After inspecting the scree plot, however, the two- and three-factor solutions were studied. Ini-

tial eigenvalues and percentage of variance accounted for by each of the first three factors were:

Factor 1 (eigenvalue ¼ 11.96, 44.29% of variance); Factor 2 (Eigenvalue ¼ 2.44, 9.04% of var-

iance); Factor 3 (eigenvalue ¼ 1.39, 5.14% of variance). Ultimately, it was determined that the

two-factor solution was more interpretable than the three-factor solution and yielded a simpler factor

structure. Parallel analysis confirmed that two factors are appropriate, given the number of items and

the sample size (Lautenschlager, 1989). Inspection of the intercorrelations between the two factors

revealed a moderately high relation, (.56), thereby supporting the use of an oblimin rotation

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Three items were dropped from the EWCS because their cross-

loading on both factors was higher than the factor loading cutoff of .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Examination of the two factors and the items associated with each corresponded to the construc-

tion of the questionnaire. Specifically, the 18 items that loaded onto Factor 1 included 17 of the 18

items originally adapted from the SRE, plus one additional item that tapped experiences with being

treated unfairly by friends. The 8 items that loaded onto Factor 2 included 7 of the 10 items devel-

oped to assess the everyday systemic experiences of classism that were themes derived from Ritz

and Hyers’ (2005) qualitative investigation (i.e., flaunting and bureaucratic hassles). The two factors

were named personalized experiences of classism (EWCS-personal) and systemic experiences of

classism (EWCS-systemic). The total amount of variance accounted for by this two-factor solution

was 54.23% (see Table 1 for all items and their factor loadings). The internal consistency reliability

coefficients (a) of the EWCS subscales identified through the present factor analysis were high: .95

for the EWCS-personal subscale and .85 for the EWCS-systemic subscale.

Differences in scores on the EWCS were also examined by participant-identified gender and

racial/ethnic group. Gender differences were demonstrated for the EWCS-personal subscale,

t(295) ¼ 2.29; p < .05, d ¼ .28, with men (M ¼ 31.76, SD ¼ 14.38) reporting significantly more

experiences with classism than women (M ¼ 28.06, SD ¼ 12.29). No gender differences were

demonstrated for the EWCS-systemic subscale, t(295) ¼ �.68; p > .05. To test for differences in

racial/ethnic group membership, data were combined across the classifications of African American,

Biracial, Asian American, Native American, Hispanic American, East Indian, International Student,

and Other. A t test demonstrated differences in the prevalence of experiences with classism for non-

European American and European American students for the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic

subscales, t(295)¼ 6.355; p < .01, d¼ .72; t(295)¼ 4.21, p < .01, d¼ .49; respectively. Specifically,

non-European American students reported greater numbers of experiences with classism (M ¼34.36, SD ¼ 15.71; M ¼ 17.76, SD ¼ 7.79) than did European American students (M ¼ 25.23,

SD ¼ 8.74; M ¼14.35, SD ¼ 6.20) on the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscales,

respectively.

Study 1 Discussion

Results from Study 1 suggest that the EWCS is a promising measure of undergraduate students’

experiences with classism for a sample that was relatively diverse in terms of self-reported race/eth-

nicity, social class (i.e., 28% of our sample identified as lower or lower-middle class; 24.7% reported

annual household incomes of less than $40,000), and first-generation college student status.


144



Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Item

Factor

1 2

1. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past yearby teachers and professors because of your social class?

.700 .045

2. How many times have you been treated unfairly by youremployers, bosses, and supervisors in the past year because ofyour social class?

.781 �.038

3. How many times have you been treated unfairly by yourcoworkers, fellow students, and colleagues in the past yearbecause of your social class?

.744 �.029

4. How many times have you been treated unfairly by people inservice jobs (store clerks, waiters, bartenders, bank tellers, andothers) in the past year because of your social class?

.735 .009

5. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past yearby strangers because of your social class?

.595 .084

6. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past yearby people in helping jobs (doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, caseworkers, dentists, school counselors, therapists, socialworkers, and others) because of your social class?

.656 .132

7. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past yearby neighbors because of your social class?

.729 �.026

8. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past yearby institutions (schools, universities, law firms, the police, thecourts, the Department of Social Services, the UnemploymentOffice and others) because of your social class?

.734 .117

9. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past yearby people that you thought were your friends because of yoursocial class?

.815 �.087

10. How many times have you been accused or suspected of doingsomething wrong (such as stealing, cheating, not doing yourshare of the work, or breaking the law) in the past year becauseof your social class?

.832 �.050

11. How many times in the past year have people misunderstoodyour intentions and motives because of your social class?

.763 �.054

12. How many times did you want to tell someone off for beingclassist but did not say anything in the past year?

.530 .066

13. How many times have you been really angry about somethingclassist that was done to you in the past year?

.645 .015

14. How many times were you forced to take drastic steps (such asfiling a grievance, filing a lawsuit, quitting your job, moving away,and other actions) to deal with some classist thing that wasdone to you in the past year?

.806 �.085

15. How many times have you been called a name like poor,welfare recipient, hobo, poor white trash, ghetto, or othernames in the past year?

.556 .041

16. How many times have you gotten into an argument or a fightabout something classist that was done to you or done tosomebody else in the past year?

.698 .047

17. How many times have you been made fun of, picked on,pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm because of yoursocial class in the past year?

.771 �.047

(continued)


145



Specifically, the EWCS demonstrated high internal consistency reliability, had a clear and stable

factor structure, and captured expected group differences in the nature of experiences with classism.

Results from the EFA highlighted the existence of two moderately correlated subscales that are con-

sistent with the initial conceptual and methodological development of the scale. Content of the

EWCS was derived from items demonstrated to assess successfully sexism (i.e., SSE; Klonoff &

Landrine, 1995) and ethnic discrimination (i.e., GED scale; Landrine et al., 2006) supplemented

with themes reported by Ritz and Hyers (2005) in their qualitative research on college students’

encounters with social class issues. The two factors revealed, therefore, make both conceptual and

empirical sense and offer a multidimensional assessment of classism that may prove useful in advan-

cing research on this phenomenon.

Supporting this suggestion, results from a prior analysis of the larger data set from which the pres-

ent data were derived (Thompson & Subich, 2011) indicated that correlations among self-reported

childhood income levels and scores on the EWCS subscales for these college students were in the

expected direction; self-reported income was negatively related to reported experiences of personal

(r ¼ �.19, p < .01) and systemic (r ¼ �.30, p < .01) classism. Further, results from t tests indicated

that individuals who self-identified as lower and lower middle class reported significantly greater

Table 1. (continued)

Item

Factor

1 2

18. How often do you feel like you have been treated differently inthe past year on the basis of your physical appearance (clothing,type of bag/purse you carried, and shoes)?

.083 .507

19. How often, in the past year, do you feel like you have hadservice persons (e.g., waiters/waitresses, cashiers, etc.) treatyou differently when paying your bill based on what youpurchased?

.256 .444

20. How many times have you been treated differently in the pastyear by your friends because of your social class?

.633 .068

21. How often in the past year have you had difficulty gettingeverything you needed for school in place because you werewaiting for financial aid to provide you with your check? (e.g.,you were unable to buy used books at the bookstore becauseby the time your financial aid check came, all of the used copieswere sold out)

�.030 .756

22. How often have you felt frustrated with all of the steps that youhad to take with the financial aid office or banks in order tohave access to money for school?

�.166 .849

23. How often in the past year have you felt that your social classwas easily identifiable because of steps you were required totake on campus? (e.g., having to stand in a separate line forthose needing financial aid or waiting for financial aid checks orpaying dues required to be involved in a sorority or fraternityon campus)?

.126 .714

24. How often in the past year did you feel that friends,roommates, and/or classmates ‘‘showed off’’ their ability to buynice things, go on vacations, and drive nice cars?

.012 .710

25. How often in the past year did you feel that you were treateddifferently because you brought your lunch to school/workrather than buying it?

.270 .401

Note. Principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblimin rotation. Items’ strongest factor loading are in bold.


146



numbers of experiences with personal and systemic classism than did participants who self-

identified as middle class and upper class. As anticipated, therefore, individuals who identified

lower levels of family income in the past and as lower or lower middle class reported more experi-

ences with classism.

Results from Study 1 also corroborated Langhout et al.’s (2007) findings with the CEQ-A that

non-European American students reported more experiences with personal and systemic classism

than did their European American counterparts. These patterns suggest the EWCS is able to capture

logical and meaningful differences in experiences among individuals. Unexpectedly, results from

the present investigation were inconsistent with those of Langhout and colleagues in that women and

men did not differ in their reported experiences with systemic classism, and in the finding that men

reported more experiences with personal classism than did women. This inconsistency may be a

function of the different item content and perspective of the two instruments, of the small sample

size of men (N ¼ 95) compared to women (N ¼ 202) in Study 1, of social class differences in the

students at the institutions where data collections took place, or of the fact that Langhout and col-

leagues examined the interaction of gender, race, and capital in their assessment of gender differ-

ences rather than examining main effects for gender.

Study 2: Validity Evidence for the EWCS and its Relation to MentalHealth Outcomes

Results from Study 1 suggested that the EWCS appears promising as a measure of everyday experi-

ences with classism according to the everyday prejudice literature. Further data are needed, how-

ever, in order to assess more specifically the psychometric properties of the EWCS and to

examine its relation to other criterion outcomes (Cattell, 1952). The purpose of Study 2 was to fur-

ther establish the validity of the EWCS with a new sample by placing the two subscales in a nomo-

logical network of convergent and discriminant and criterion measures.

First, Langhout et al.’s (2007) CEQ-A was used to provide an indication of the extent to which the

EWCS and CEQ-A appear to be tapping similar or distinct experiences related to classism. In par-

ticular, based on Langhout et al.’s description of the development of the CEQ-A, it was anticipated

that the EWCS subscales would be related to the institutional classism and interpersonal classism via

discounting subscales as these subscales assess experiences similar to those that the EWCS aims to

tap (i.e., classism related to organizational structures and dismissive behaviors directed toward lower

class individuals), but not to the citational classism subscale that taps a seemingly distinct experi-

ence of classism (i.e., telling disparaging jokes and making stereotypic comments about people who

are from lower class backgrounds).

Second, given that everyday experiences with classism appear to overlap with other individual

difference variables (e.g., race/ethnicity and gender), the relations of classism experiences with two

other individual difference variables (i.e., social desirability response tendency and negative affec-

tivity) were examined in an effort to establish discriminant validity. Specifically, it was expected

that the EWCS subscales would not relate to the tendency to present oneself in a socially desirable

manner or to negative affectivity. As such, the following hypotheses related to convergent and dis-

criminant validity were proposed:

Hypothesis 1: EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscale scores relate positively to the inter-

personal classism via discounting and institutional classism subscales of the CEQ-A, respec-

tively, and are not significantly related to the CEQ-A citational classism subscale.

Hypothesis 2: The EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscale scores are not significantly

related to negative affectivity or social desirability.


147



Given the findings from previous literature that has supported the link between experiences with

discrimination and psychological distress (e.g., Fischer & Shaw, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff,

1997; Landrine, Klonoff, Gibbs, Manning, & Lund, 1995; Swim et al., 2001), the EWCS also was

examined as a concurrent predictor of several mental health outcomes. Relations of social class and

SES to increased psychopathology, including depression (Lorant et al., 2003; Poulton et al., 2002),

anxiety (Lynch, Kaplan, & Salonen, 1997), and substance abuse and dependence (e.g., Diala, Mun-

taner, & Walrath, 2004) have been observed, and it seems reasonable to suggest that discrimination

based on social class may underlie in part those observed relations. Consequently, we tested the rela-

tions of EWCS subscale scores to anxiety, stress, depression, self-esteem, and wellness for a college

student sample.

The following hypothesis was, therefore, proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Higher scores on the EWCS subscales positively relate to depression, anxiety, and

stress and negatively relate to perceived wellness and self-esteem.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Undergraduate students were recruited from psychology courses and received course credit for their

participation in the study. This sample was comprised of a distinct group of participants from the

same institution as was described in Study 1. One hundred and ninety students participated in this

study and completed the majority of the survey. There were, however, missing data at the full-

scale level for 40 students (i.e., the measures that were included at the end of the survey were left

blank, likely due to fatigue). As a result, responses from all students were included in the majority of

the analysis, but analyses involving some scales placed at the end of the survey (including demo-

graphic data) are based on a smaller number of participants (see reported n sizes in the Results sec-

tion for more detail).

The 150 students who completed the demographic information ranged in age from 18 to 42 years

(M ¼ 21.04; SD ¼ 5.04). One hundred and eight participants were women and 42 were men. Stu-

dents identified as representing the following racial/ethnic groups: African American (17), European

American/Caucasian (123), Biracial (4), and other (6). Regarding social class background, 7 self-

identified as belonging to the lower class, 30 as lower middle class, 76 as middle class, 36 as upper

middle class, and 1 as upper class. When asked about the annual income level in the household in

which they were raised, 33 reported incomes less than $40,000, 33 reported incomes of $40,000–

$59,999, 52 reported incomes of $60,000–$89,999, and 31 indicated incomes greater than

$90,000 (one student did not specify). Sixty-one students indicated that they were first-generation

college students and 89 indicated that they were not.

Measures

EWCS (Thompson, 2008). For the present sample, the coefficient a for the EWCS-personal sub-

scale was .97 and the a for the EWCS-systemic subscale was .83.

CEQ-A (Langhout, Rosselli, & Feinstein, 2007). The CEQ-A is designed to assess students’ experi-

ences with classism along three domains: institutionalized classism (5 items), citational classism

(9 items), and interpersonal classism via discounting (7 items). Participants respond to each item

on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never to many times. Responses are scored for each sub-

scale by creating a binary score with 1 indicating a response of never and 2 indicating any other

response (i.e., once or twice to many times; see Langhout et al., 2007, for a review). Total scores


148



may range from 1 to 5 for the institutionalized classism, 1–9 for the citational classism, and 1–7 for

the interpersonal classism via discounting subscales, with higher scores indicating more experiences

with classism.

Citational and interpersonal classism have been demonstrated to be related negatively to out-

comes such as psychological well-being, social adjustment, academic adjustment, and positive

school feelings, and positively to a desire and intentions to leave the university. Institutional clas-

sism was positively related to a desire and intentions to leave the university and negatively related

to levels of academic adjustment and positive feelings toward school (Langhout, Drake, & Roselli,

2009; Langhout et al., 2007). Previous research has demonstrated coefficient as of .74 for the insti-

tutionalized classism subscale, .92 to .93 for the citational classism subscale, and .83 for the inter-

personal classism via discounting subscale (Langhout et al., 2007; Langhout et al., 2009). For the

present study, coefficient a was .65, .93, and .84 for the institutional, citational, and interpersonal

classism via discounting subscales, respectively.

Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The MCSDS is

designed to assess the tendency to respond in socially desirable ways on self-report measures. It has

been the most frequently used measure of socially desirable responding in research for several

decades (Beretvas, Meyers, & Leite, 2002). The MCSDS is comprised of 33 items to which parti-

cipants respond using a true–false format. The 33 items comprise two factors: attribution, or the ten-

dency to endorse items depicting socially acceptable but uncommon behaviors (18 items), and

denial, or the tendency to deny socially disapproved but common behaviors (15 items). Support for

this two-factor structure (Loo & Loewen, 2004) as well as for its test–retest reliability, internal con-

sistency reliability, and validity exists (see Beretvas et al., 2002, for a review). Internal consistency

reliability for the present sample was .93 for the attribution subscale and .95 for the denial subscale.

Strain-Free Negative Affectivity scale—short form (SFNA; Fortunato & Stone-Romero, 1999). The SFNA

is designed to measure negative emotional reactivity. A short form of the original 28-item version

includes 13 items (Fortunato & Stone-Romero, 1999). Participants respond to the items on a 6-point

Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Total scores may range from 13

to 78, with higher scores indicating higher levels of negative affectivity. Internal consistency has

been demonstrated to be .85 for the 28-item version and .83 for the short form (Fortunato &

Stone-Romero, 1999). For the present sample, coefficient a was .79.

Self-Esteem scale (SE; Rosenberg, 1965). The 10-item Self-Esteem scale was used to assess partici-

pants’ self-esteem. Responses are made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree

(1) to strongly disagree (5). Scores may range from 10 to 50 with lower scores indicating higher self-

esteem. The Self-Esteem scale has been shown to have internal consistency reliability estimates that

range from .77 to .88 and test–retest reliabilities that range from .82 to .88 (Blascovich & Tomaka,

1993). The a for the current sample was .88.

Depression-Anxiety-Stress scales—short form (DASS-SF; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-SF is

a 21-item scale designed to assess an individual’s endorsement of experiencing negative symptoms

over the past week. Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they experienced each of the 21

symptoms on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘did not apply to me at all’’ to ‘‘applied to me

very much, or most of the time.’’ The DASS-SF consists of three subscales (each containing 7 items)

intended to tap Depression, Anxiety, and Stress. Item responses for each subscale are summed to

determine an individual’s score. Previous research has demonstrated that the subscales correlate

as expected with other measures; the Anxiety scale correlated at .81 with the Beck Anxiety Inven-

tory and the Depression scale correlated at .74 with the Beck Depression Inventory (Lovibond &


149



Lovibond, 1995). Although the three subscales have been demonstrated to be moderately highly cor-

related, results of factor analysis revealed three separate subscales, which is consistent with the

design of the measure (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). From their analysis of the psychometric prop-

erties of the subscales, Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) concluded ‘‘the analyses confirmed that the

Stress scale as a whole contains a coherent set of symptoms that may be differentiated from depres-

sion and anxiety’’ (p. 342). Previous internal consistency reliability estimates for the depression,

anxiety, and stress subscales have been demonstrated to be .91, .84, and .90, respectively (Lovibond

& Lovibond, 1995). Alphas for the current sample were .91, .87, and .88 for the Depression, Anxiety,

and Stress scales, respectively.

Perceived wellness survey (PWS; Adams, Bezner, & Steinhardt, 1997). The PWS was developed to

operationalize the perceived wellness model (Adams et al.) in order to assess a multidimensional

understanding of well-being across six domains: emotional (self-esteem and self regard), intellectual

(optimal intellectual stimulation), physical (physical health perceptions), psychological (optimism

and positive life expectancy), social (receiving and providing support), and spiritual (positive per-

ceptions of life meaning and purposeful living) wellness (Adams et al.). Participants indicate the

extent to which they agree or disagree with items using a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from

1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater perceived

wellness.

Although the original PWS designed to assess the six life dimensions proposed by the perceived

wellness model and an initial confirmatory factor analysis using an alternative models strategy

revealed support for the six-factor solution (Adams et al., 1997), more recent research has demon-

strated empirical support for the use of a revised 33-item one-factor PWS (see Harari, Waehler, &

Rogers, 2005, for a full description). This revised 33-item version of the PWS was demonstrated to

account for significant variance in the Beck Depression Inventory—second edition, Beck Anxiety

Inventory, and Hopkins Symptom Checklist-21 when controlling for impression management. The

original 36-item version of the PWS has been demonstrated to have high test–retest reliability esti-

mates (.73 to .81) over a 2-week period (Adams, Bezner, Garner, & Woodruff, 1998; Adams et al.,

1997). Data support the internal consistency reliability of both the original full scale (.88 to .93;

Adams et al., 1997; Adams, et al., 1998) and the revised 33-item version (.91; Harari et al.,

2005). For the present study, we used the 33-item single factor version of the PWS and a was esti-

mated to be .91.

Results

See Table 2 for the full pattern of intercorrelations among the primary variables. Consistent with

Hypothesis 1, results demonstrated that the EWCS subscales correlated as expected with the

CEQ-A subscales. Specifically, the EWCS-personal subscale and the EWCS-systemic subscale

were significantly and positively related to the CEQ-institutional (r ¼ .352, p < .01; r ¼ .469,

p < .01, respectively) and the CEQ-interpersonal classism via discounting (r ¼ .157, p < .05; r ¼.295, p < .01, respectively) subscales, but neither significantly related to the CEQ-citational classism

subscale (r ¼ .044, p > .05; r ¼ .144, p > .05, respectively); the sample size was 190 for all of these

analyses. Inspection of this pattern of intercorrelations suggests that the EWCS subscales are tapping

related, yet, distinct constructs from the CEQ-institutional and CEQ-interpersonal subscales and are

unrelated to the CEQ-citational classism subscale.

Results were also consistent with expectations for Hypothesis 2; neither EWCS subscale signif-

icantly related to SFNA (r ¼ �.113, p > .05 for EWCS-personal; r ¼ �.087, p > .05 for EWCS-

systemic; n ¼ 158) or to the two subscales of the MCSDS. Specifically, the attribution subscale was

unrelated to EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic (r ¼ .033, p > .05; r ¼ �.029, p > .05,


150



Tab

le2.

Inte

rcorr

elat

ions

Am

ong

Pri

mar

yV

aria

ble

s.

PW

SSE

EW

CS-

SEW

CS-

PST

RA

NX

DEP

SDS1

SDS2

SFN

AC

EQ

-IC

EQ

-CC

EQ

-D

PW

S1

.782*

�.3

99*

�.4

47*

�.4

79*

�.5

73*

�.6

37*

�.0

15

.073

�.0

23

�.3

22*

�.1

40

�.3

25*

N158

153

158

158

158

158

158

126

126

132

158

158

158

SE1

�.3

25*

�.3

78*

�.4

26*

�.4

78*

�.6

80*

.054

.096

.001

�.2

43*

�.0

99

�.2

14*

N181

181

181

180

180

180

143

143

152

181

181

181

EW

CS-

S1

.711*

.428*

.415*

.404*

�.0

29

�.0

62

�.0

87

.295*

.114

.469*

N190

190

189

189

189

149

149

158

190

190

190

EW

CS-

P1

.456*

.529*

.467*

.033

�.0

34

�.1

13

.157*

.044

.352*

N190

189

189

189

149

149

158

190

190

190

STR

1.7

36*

.691*

�.0

90

�.1

65*

.170**

.243*

.215*

.402*

N189

189

189

149

149

157

189

189

189

AN

X1

.679*

�.1

42

�.1

73**

.049

.301*

.044

.306*

N189

189

149

149

157

189

189

189

DEP

1�

.192**

�.2

02**

�.0

02

.224*

.103

.248*

N189

149

149

157

189

189

189

SDS1

1.8

49*

�.0

23

.049

.110

.037

N149

149

149

149

149

149

SDS2

1�

.186**

.039

.077

.004

N149

149

149

149

149

SFN

A1

�.0

14

.102

.019

N158

158

158

158

CEQ

-I1

.168**

.446*

N190

190

190

CEQ

-C1

.391*

N190

190

CEQ

-D1

N190

Not

e.A

NX¼

anxie

ty;C

EQ

-C¼

CEQ

cita

tional

;CEQ

-D¼

CEQ

dis

tanci

ng;

CEQ

-I¼

CEQ

inst

itutional

;DEP¼

dep

ress

ion;E

WC

S-P¼

exper

ience

sw

ith

clas

sism

-per

sonal

;EW

CS-

S¼

exper

i-en

ces

with

clas

sism

-sys

tem

ic;PW

S¼

Per

ceiv

edw

ell-bei

ng;

SDS1¼

attr

ibution;SD

S2¼

den

ial;

SE¼

self-

este

em;SF

NA¼

stra

in-f

ree

neg

ativ

eaf

fect

ivity;

STR¼

stre

ss.

*p�

.01.**

p�

.05.

151



respectively) as was the denial subscale (r ¼ �.034, p > .05; r ¼ �.062, p > .05, respectively); the

sample size was 149 for these analyses.

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, both the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscales related

positively to Depression (r ¼ .47, p < .01; r ¼ .40, p < .01, respectively), Anxiety (r ¼ .53, p <

.01; r¼ .42, p < .01, respectively), and Stress (r¼ .46, p < .01; r¼ .43, p < .01, respectively); sample

size was 189 for these correlations, Further, both the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscales

related negatively to perceived wellness (r¼�.45, p < .01; r¼�.40, p < .01, respectively; n¼ 158)

and self-esteem (r ¼ �.38, p < .01; r ¼ �.33, p < .01, respectively; n ¼ 181).

Hierarchical regression analyses were then conducted in order to determine whether the EWCS

subscales contribute incrementally to each of the five criterion variables examined in this study (i.e.,

EWCS-personal was entered into Step 1 and EWCS-systemic was entered into Step 2). Results

demonstrated that the EWCS-systemic subscale contributed incremental variance above the contri-

bution of the EWCS-personal subscale for Stress but not for Anxiety, Depression, Perceived Well-

Being, or Self-esteem (see Table 3).

Study 2 Discussion

Results from Study 2 provided further validity evidence for the EWCS. Correlations of the EWCS

subscales with Langhout et al.’s (2007) CEQ-A subscales suggested overlap as well as

Table 3. Hierarchical Regressions for Predictions of Criterion Variables (N ¼ xx).

Step and variable b R2 F Adjusted R2 DR2 DF

Criterion: PWSStep 1

EWCS-personal �.34* .20 38.94* .20 .20 38.94*Step 2

EWCS-systemic �.15 .21 20.60* .20 .01 2.01Criterion: STR

Step 1EWCS-personal .31* .21 49.05* .20 .21 49.05*

Step 2EWCS-systemic .21** .23 27.74* .22 .02 5.31**

Criterion: ANXStep 1

EWCS-personal .47* .28 72.49* .28 .28 72.49*Step 2

EWCS-systemic .08* .28 36.63* .28 .003 .84Criterion: DEP

Step 1EWCS-personal .36* .21 52.18* .21 .22 52.18*

Step 2EWCS-systemic .15 .22 27.558* .22 .01 2.51

Criterion: S-EStep 1

EWCS-personal �.30* .14 29.78* .14 .14 29.78*Step 2

EWCS-Systemic �.11 .15 15.26* .14 .01 1.26

Note. bs in table are from final analysis; DSIS ¼ Differential Status Identity scale; PWS ¼ perceived well-being; STR ¼ stress;ANX ¼ anxiety; DEP ¼ depression; S-E ¼ self-esteem; STR, ANX, and DEP N = 189; PWS N = 158; S-E N = 181.*p � .01. **p � .05.


152



differentiation. Specifically, although both EWCS subscales correlated significantly with the CEQ-

A subscales for institutionalized and interpersonal classism via discounting, none of the correlation

coefficients were so large as to indicate complete overlap (rs ranged from .16 to .47). As would be

expected due to their more similar item content, the strongest of these correlations was demonstrated

to be between the EWCS-systemic subscale and the CEQ-A institutional subscale. Also as expected,

neither EWCS subscale correlated with the CEQ-A citational classism subscale; this latter subscale

seems to assess a very distinct and more indirect classist experience. The CEQ-A citational classism

subscale addresses one’s witnessing of other students and professors making classist remarks rather

than focusing solely at the level of an individual’s experience with discrimination resulting from her

or his social position, as is the case with the EWCS-personal subscale.

Evidence for discriminant validity of the EWCS was demonstrated by the lack of a relation

between the EWCS subscales and the two individual difference measures. Specifically, the EWCS

is not assessing a mode of responding nor are its scores reflective of a person’s general affective

orientation.

Findings also supported the concurrent validity of the EWCS. Specifically, results were consis-

tent with previous literature (e.g., Fischer & Shaw, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1997; Landrine et al.,

1995; Swim et al., 2001) demonstrating relations among experiences with discrimination and psy-

chological distress. As anticipated, higher scores on both EWCS subscales were significantly related

to increased levels of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress, and to lower levels of wellness and self-

esteem. Further extending our understanding of the EWCS subscales, the results from the explora-

tory hierarchical regression analyses revealed that each EWCS subscale contributed unique variance

to the prediction of Stress, but not to the other criterion variables. These latter findings support the

differential utility of the subscales with some, but not all, criterion variables.

General Discussion

This series of two studies introduced and offered psychometric data on a new self-report measure of

experiences with classism that was designed for use with college students, the EWCS. The EWCS is

grounded in the literature on everyday prejudice and builds on prior measures that assessed sexism

and racism. The EWCS was intended to extend prior theoretical conceptualizations of discrimination

resulting from one’s social class position (i.e., Fouad & Brown, 2000; Liu, 2002; Smith, 2005),

empirical data exploring the operationalization of classism for college students (i.e., Ritz & Hyers,

2005), and quantitative work examining experiences with classism on college campuses (Langhout

et al., 2007; Ostrove & Cole, 2003).

Taken together, the results from Study 1 and Study 2 indicate that the EWCS has a two-factor

structure with modest overlap of factors. Each factor exhibited high internal consistency reliability

estimates across two distinct samples of participants. This research also demonstrated evidence for

the convergent and discriminant validity of the EWCS, and that its two subscales appear to be con-

ceptually meaningful. Although there is tentative evidence that the two subscales are distinctive in

their explanatory power, at least for specific outcomes, further research examining the extent of their

distinctiveness is needed in future research, particularly as applied to vocational outcomes.

Limitations and Directions for Research and Practice

As noted, the EWCS appears to be a promising new measure of experiences with classism that may

have a number of potential psychological implications. Additional research is needed, however, to

establish the psychometric properties of the measure more fully. In particular, future research is

needed to further assess the factor structure of the EWCS, to examine whether the two subscales

contribute incrementally to a variety of education- and career-related outcomes, to examine response


153



patterns among participants from various social class backgrounds, and to examine the applicability

of the EWCS to larger and more diverse samples (especially given the missing data encountered in

Study 2).

The EWCS was designed to examine the experiences with classism of students in higher educa-

tion settings so the present findings may not generalize to a broader adult population. Despite sug-

gestions from scholars that experiences with classism may be particularly salient during college

(e.g., Fouad & Brown, 2000; Langhout et al., 2007; Ostrove & Long, 2007), the inclusion of

campus-specific items in the measure may be seen as hindering the study of classism with other

groups. Given that the items comprising the EWCS-personal subscale are primarily those adapted

from the GED, however, it is reasonable to expect that this subscale could generalize to other popu-

lations; the SRE and the GED have been used effectively with varied community samples (e.g.,

Klonoff & Landrine, 1999; Klonoff, Landrine, & Ullman, 1999; Landrine et al., 2006). In particular,

only 3 items from this subscale specifically reference school or campus (i.e., Item 1 references teach-

ers and professors, Item 3 includes fellow students in the list of potential others, and Item 8 includes

universities as an example of an institution). These items could be easily altered to be applied to

noncollege student samples.

In contrast, given the specific focus of the EWCS-systemic subscale on experiences related to

flaunting and bureaucratic hassles on college campuses as identified by Ritz and Hyers (2005), most

of its items more specifically reference factors relevant to college students. The EWCS-systemic

subscale, therefore, may be less easily adapted or generalized for use with other samples. Neverthe-

less, research is needed to examine empirically the applicability of both EWCS subscales to other

populations (e.g., working adults, secondary school students, noncollege bound youth), and whether

alternate versions without education-specific items may be warranted for different samples.

Future measurement development efforts are also needed in order to assess other types of experi-

ences with classism (i.e., upward classism, lateral classism, and internalized classism) as conceptua-

lized by Liu (2002) in his SCWM. Specifically, research is needed in order to understand more

clearly how to measure such diverse experiences of classism. For example, it is unclear whether indi-

viduals from upper-class backgrounds would respond similarly to those from lower-class back-

grounds on some items of the EWCS. Additionally, the EWCS was not designed to tap an

individual’s experience of internalized classism, which is proposed to have important implications

for one’s identity development and perception of self (Liu). The development of a measure of inter-

nalized classism that includes cognitive and affective components seems warranted. Findings from

Nelson, Englar-Carlson, Tierney, and Hau’s (2006) qualitative investigation demonstrated that indi-

viduals experienced guilt, disappointment, and anxiety as a result of ‘‘class jumping.’’ These find-

ings may offer an initial glimpse of the affective and cognitive experiences that one may experience

related to her or his social class position and could be extended to explore internalized classism for

those who are unable to meet the class expectations of his or her perceived economic group.

Despite the need to further develop the EWCS, the current scale appears strong enough to begin

to serve vocational and psychological researchers. Specific to vocational psychology, it may assist

those interested in understanding the relation of social class and experiences with classism to college

students’ vocational processes and outcomes. In addition, the development of the EWCS offers a

mechanism by which researchers can examine everyday classism experiences in conjunction with

sexism and racism experiences to determine the separate and joint manner in which these different

oppressions impact individuals’ occupational choice and development; this may enhance the sophis-

tication of research on vocational barriers in a way suggested by Lent et al. in 2000. Further, in

accord with Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s (1994, 2000) SCCT model, it may be possible now to exam-

ine specifically how persons’ coping and coping efficacy function as protective or compensatory

mechanisms for the suggested deleterious effects of the barrier of proximal classism experiences

on occupational goals and actions. Similarly, the EWCS may facilitate examination of some of


154



Blustein’s (2006) tenets with regard to his psychology of working theory (e.g., that the effects of

classism may be confounded with those of racism and sexism, that classism may influence how

workers perceive and value themselves and their work). Use of the EWCS, thus, may advance voca-

tional theory and empirical research.

An important avenue for future research and perhaps practice is suggested by the present finding

that classism experiences, as assessed with the EWCS, appear to be related to deleterious mental

health outcomes. This finding corroborates previous research demonstrating that experiences with

racism and sexism have similar relations with mental health outcomes (e.g., Fischer & Shaw,

1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1997; Swim et al., 2001). As such, it seems important to begin to exam-

ine the longitudinal effects of experiences with classism as related to individuals’ psychological and

vocational functioning.

Thompson and Subich (2011) recently noted that classism experiences related to weakened con-

fidence in career decision making, but it remains to be explored whether classism experiences are

related as well to such problematic vocational outcomes as diminished job performance and satis-

faction, circumscribed job search scope or behavior, or negative outcome expectations for particular

career decisions. The role of classism in motivating and/or blocking persons’ occupational aspira-

tions, choices, and adjustment also remains to be determined. Confirmation of such effects would

be important information for practitioners working with students and clients at risk as targets of clas-

sism. It would also provide an impetus for intervention research to identify effective ways to combat

these ill effects. In sum, the EWCS offers a tool to advance the work of scholars such as Blustein

(2006), Navarro, Flores, and Worthington (2007), Thompson and Subich (2006), and Ali, McWhir-

ter, and Chronister (2005) who have begun to explore the role of social class in vocational

psychology.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publica-

tion of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams, T., Bezner, J., Garner, L., & Woodruff, S. (1998). Construct validation of the Perceived Wellness

Survey. American Journal of Health Studies, 14, 212–222.

Adams, T., Bezner, J., & Steinhardt, M. (1997). The conceptualization and measurement of perceived wellness:

Integrating balance across and within dimensions. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 208–218.

Ali, S. R., McWhirter, E. H., & Chronister, K. M. (2005). Self-efficacy and vocational outcome expectations for

adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: A pilot study. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 40–58. doi:10.

1177/1069072704270273

Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the Marlowe-Crowne

social desirability scale. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 62, 570–589.

Betz, N. E. (2005). Women’s career development. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development

and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 253–277). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1993). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.

Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (3rd ed., pp. 115–160).

Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and

public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cattell, R. B. (1952). Factor analysis. New York, NY: Harper.


155



Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.

Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358

Diala, C. C., Muntaner, C., & Walrath, C. (2004). Gender, occupational, and socioeconomic correlates of alco-

hol and drug abuse among U.S. rural, metropolitan, and urban residents. American Journal of Drug and

Alcohol Abuse, 30, 409–428. doi:10.1081/ada-120037385

Diemer, M. A., & Ali, S. R. (2009). Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Theory and practice

implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 247–265.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory

factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.

Feagin, J. R. (1991). The continuing significance of race: AntiBlack discrimination in public places. American

Sociological Review, 56, 101–116. doi:10.2307/2095676

Fischer, A. R., & Shaw, C. M. (1999). African Americans’ mental health and perceptions of racist discrimina-

tion: The moderating effects of racial socialization experiences and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 46, 395–407. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.395

Fortunato, V. J., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1999). Taking the strain out of negative affectivity: Development and

initial validation of scores on a strain-free measure of negative affectivity. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 59, 77–97. doi:10.1177/00131649921969758

Fouad, N. A., & Brown, M. T. (2000). The role of race and class in development: Implications for counseling

psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp.

379–408). New York, NY: Wiley.

Frable, D. E. S. (1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of Psychology, 48,

139–162.

Gainor, K. (2006). Twenty-five years of self-efficacy in career assessment and practice. Journal of Career

Assessment, 14, 161–178.

Harari, M. J., Waehler, C. A., & Rogers, J. R. (2005). An empirical investigation of a theoretically based mea-

sure of perceived wellness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 93–103. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.93

Jones, S. J. (2003). Complex subjectivities: Class, ethnicity, and race in women’s narratives of upward mobility.

Journal of Social Issues, 59, 803–820.

Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The schedule of sexist events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist

discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 439–472.

Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1999). Cross-validation of the schedule of racist events. Journal of Black

Psychology, 25, 231–254. doi:10.1177/0095798499025002006

Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Ullman, J. B. (1999). Racial discrimination and psychiatric symptoms among

blacks. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 329–339. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.5.4.329

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial discrimination

and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22,

144–168.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1997). Discrimination against women: Prevalence, consequences, remedies.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Corral, I., Fernandez, S., & Roesch, S. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring

ethnic discrimination in health research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 79–94. doi:10.1007/

s10865-005-9029-0

Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Gibbs, J., Manning, V., & Lund, M. (1995). Physical and psychiatric correlates of gen-

der discrimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19,

473–492.

Langhout, R. D., Drake, P., & Rosselli, F. (2009). Classism in the university setting: Examining student ante-

cedents and outcomes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2, 166–181. doi:10.1037/a0016209

Langhout, R. D., Rosselli, F., & Feinstein, J. (2007). Assessing classism in academic settings. Review of Higher

Education: Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 30, 145–184.


156



Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses for determining

parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 365–395.

Lee, R. M., & Dean, B. L. (Writer). (2004). Middle-class mythology in an age of immigration and segmented

assimilation: Implication for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 19–24.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying cognitive theory of career and academic

interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social

cognitive analyses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.

Liu, W. M. (2001). Expanding our understanding of multiculturalism: Developing a social class worldview

model. The intersection of race, class, and gender in counseling psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Liu, W. M. (2002). The social class-related experiences of men: Integrating theory and practice. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 355–360.

Liu, W. M., Ali, S. R., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T., Jr. (2004). Using social class in coun-

seling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 3–18.

Loo, R., & Loewen, P. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of scores from full and short versions of the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2343–2352.

Lorant, V., Kampfl, D., Seghers, A., Deliege, D., Closon, M. C., & Ansseau, M. (2003). Socio-economic dif-

ferences in psychiatric in-patient care. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 107, 170–177. doi:10.1034/j.1600-

0447.2003.00071

Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the

depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour

Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343. doi:10.1016/0005-7967

Lynch, J. W., Kaplan, G. A., & Salonen, J. T. (1997). Why do poor people behave poorly? Variation in adult

health behaviours and psychosocial characteristics by stages of the socioeconomic lifecourse. Social Science

& Medicine, 44, 809–819. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00191-8

Metz, A. J., Fouad, N. A., & Ihle Helledy, K. (2009). Career aspirations and expectations of college students:

Demographics and labor market influences. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 155–171.

Navarro, R. L., Flores, L. Y., & Worthington, R. L. (2007). Mexican American middle school students’ goal

intentions in mathematics and science: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 54, 320–335.

Nelson, M. L., Englar-Carlson, M., Tierney, S. C., & Hau, J. M. (2006). Class jumping into academia: Multiple

identities for counseling academics. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 1–14.

Ostrove, J. M., & Cole, E. R. (2003). Privileging class: Toward a critical psychology of social class in the con-

text of education. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 677–692.

Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. Review

of Higher Education: Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 30, 363–389.

Poulton, R., Caspi, A., Milne, B., Thomson, W., Taylor, A., Sears, M., & Moffitt, T. (2002). Association

between children’s experience of socioeconomic disadvantage and adult health: a life-course study.

Lancet, 360, 1640–1645.

Ritz, S. F., & Hyers, L. L. (2005). The stigma of poverty: The nature and implications of everyday classism. Poster

presented during the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sheu, H., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Miller, M. J., Hennessy, K. D., & Duffy, R. D. (2010). Testing the choice

model of social cognitive career theory across Holland themes: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 76, 252–264.

Smith, L. (2005). Psychotherapy, classism, and the poor: Conspicuous by their absence. American Psychologist,

60, 687–696.

Swanson, J. L., Daniels, K. K., & Tokar, D. M. (1996). Assessing perceptions of career-related barriers: The

career barriers inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 219–244.


157



Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. (1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination. In J. K.

Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 37–60). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence,

nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53.

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African American college

students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of

Black Psychology, 29, 38–67.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

Thompson, M. N. (2008). Relations of supports and barriers to social status and vocational behavior.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69, 5104.

Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2006). The relation of social status to the career decision-making process.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 289–301.

Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2011). Social status identity: Antecedents and vocational outcomes. The

Counseling Psychologist, 39, 735–763. doi:10.1177/0011000010389828

Williams, W. R. (2009). Struggling with poverty: Implications for theory and policy of increasing research on

social class-based stigma. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 9, 37–56. doi:10.1111/j.

1530-2415.2009.01184

Worthington, R. L., Flores, L. Y., & Navarro, R. L. (2005). Career development in context: Research with peo-

ple of color. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and

research to work (pp. 225–252). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.


158



Documents

Development and Exploration of the Experiences With Classism Scale