Dimensions of social stratification

Robert Erikson

Swedish Institute for Social Research

SIMSAM Workshop

April 20, 2012

Issue

How should we measure social background or social position in social and epidemiological research?

The common practice of using just one factor – class, education, status or income – makes us underestimate the overall importance of social differences and overestimate the importance of the factor chosen.

Two examples (if time permits)

Why is it important to distinguish between different factors in an

individual’s social background or social position?

Possible mechanisms: Parents’ education

Ability to help children in their school work

Knowledge about how to best navigate the educational system

Reading as a normal activity at home

Emphasis on education as a value

Possible mechanisms: Parents’ earnings

Economic resources (shared with social class):

Ability to cover the costs of education

Own rooms to children.

More equipment facilitating school work

Choice of housing area

Possible mechanisms: Parents’ occupations

Class: Conception of what is needed to get a ’good’ job Material resources (compare earnings) Learning occupational skills Inheritance of a firm or a farm

These last two factors may have a negative effect

Status: Socio-cultural resources

Culture at home

Measures of social background

Highest level of education (six categories)

Social class (EGP – seven classes, dominance)

Social status (Camsis based on spouses’ or cohab’s occupations, dominance)

Earnings (averages up to five years, 2003 prices)

All variables refer as closely as possible to pupils age 12

Children’s characteristics

Highest level of education (nine categories)

Data sources

Four cohorts of pupils born 1948, 1953, 1967 and 1972 collected at the Department of Education, Gothenburg University

10 percent random samples of pupils in grade 6 when interviews and cognitive tests were administered

Parents’ education and occupation collected from the censuses 1960-1990, parents’ earnings from tax registers 1968-1989

Children’s education collected from the education register starting in 1985.

Men’s education regressed on social background factors: Bivariate and multivariate models

bivariate multivariate b t R2 b t R2 Year 1.06 25.49 0.04 0.25 6.17 0.20 Educ 3.55 58.37 0.16 1.71 19.75 Class 0.15 Hier 2.76 53.36 0.84 10.30 Farm -1.20 -16.48 -0.33 -4.30 S-emp -0.65 -11.09 -0.23 -3.92 Status 5.10 50.93 0.13 1.47 10.12 Earn 26.55 46.43 0.11 8.33 11.92

Women’s education regressed on social background factors: Bivariate and multivariate models

bivariate multivariate b t R2 b t R2 Year 1.32 30.90 0.05 0.60 13.90 0.19 Educ 3.51 54.72 0.15 1.70 18.48 Class 0.13 Hier 2.70 49.73 0.89 10.53 Farm -0.38 -5.03 0.50 6.43 S-emp -0.46 -7.45 -0.03 0.52 Status 4.88 46.43 0.11 1.09 7.16 Earn 25.83 41.21 0.09 7.87 9.93

Torssander J. and R. Erikson (2010): “Stratification and Mortality – A comparison of education, class, status and income.” European Sociological Review, 26: 465-

474.

Data sources

The Cause of Death Register 1991-2003, with information on underlying causes and timing of death;

The Census of 1990;

Analysis

• Cox regression, with age in months as the dependent variable and death as the event.

• The time axis starts at the age in 1990 and ends at the age at censoring by death, emigration or at the end of the follow-up period in December 2003.

Back to the issue: Are different dimensions of social background associated with educational attainment or mortality?

Yes, Parents’ education, class, status and earnings all

have independent connections to education Together they account for close to one fifth of the

variance in education, although none of them

account for more than around 15 percent. Likewise, own education, class, status and earnings

all have independent associations with mortality.

Conclusion

Social stratification is multidimensional

The idea of interchangeability of indices may work for illustrative purposes, but should not be applied for analytic ones

THE END