social class sentiments in formation: influence of class socialization, college socialization, and...

The Sociological Quarterly

47

(2006) 471–495 © 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

471

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USATSQThe Sociological Quarterly0038-02532006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2006473471495CLASS AND GENDER

Class Sentiments in FormationTed M. Brimeyer, JoAnn Miller, and Robert Perrucci

*Direct all correspondence to Ted M. Brimeyer, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Georgia

Southern University, P.O. Box 8051, Statesboro, GA 30458; e-mail: [email protected]

SOCIAL CLASS SENTIMENTS IN FORMATION: Influence of Class Socialization, College Socialization, and Class Aspirations

Ted M. Brimeyer

Georgia Southern University

JoAnn Miller

Purdue University

Robert Perrucci

Purdue University

What explains social class sentiments among public university students? This empirical study uses

a distributional model to define social class, which places students and their families with compa-

rable resources over time into similar class locations. We survey a sample of students enrolled in

four different schools at a large public midwestern university. The research finds that examining

experiences with past, present, and anticipated or aspired future class locations is necessary for

understanding the attitudes and beliefs associated with class that are held by young adults. We con-

tend that future research designed to validly measure class consciousness or class sentiments must

recognize that for some segments of the general population, class sentiments are not fixed, but are

in a process of formation.

For public university students, most of whom expect to enjoy the benefits of the middleclass after graduation, social class location and how it is achieved are important issues.Students come from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and their past experiencesmay influence how they think about relations between social classes in society, or aboutincome and wealth distribution. In a mobile society, people can supposedly change theirclass location and may change their views of class relations to preserve the advantages thatthey have gained or hope to gain.

Social class sentiments are attitudes and beliefs illustrating awareness of inequalitiesand conflicting interests between groups or strata in society, and the perceived need foregalitarian change. Class sentiments are similar to Bourdieu’s habitus (Bourdieu 1977,1980; King 2000; Turner and Boyns 2001). They are structured and internalized percep-tions and beliefs, influenced by social class location that social actors perform to modifyor reproduce social relations. Class sentiments have been viewed by other scholars as

472


47


Class Sentiments in Formation

Ted M. Brimeyer, JoAnn Miller, and Robert Perrucci

structured mental states that are a precondition for class consciousness, which includesawareness of class interests and willingness to use political action to realize class interests(Morris and Murphy 1966; Legget 1968).

In this research, we examine class sentiments in formation, that is, the perceptions ofuniversity students that are expressed in their beliefs about the role of government inredistributing income, the influence of corporations, and trust in corporations. Weexamine how these class sentiments are shaped by life experiences linked to parental classlocation, that is, the students’

class socialization

. We also show how they are linked to stu-dents’ current experiences, that is,

college socialization

, and to anticipated future condi-tions, or

class aspirations

. The research questions are as follows:

1.

How do students characterize their parents’ class location?

2.

How do they characterize their anticipated class location?

3.

What is the relationship between parental class location and aspired class location?

4.

What explains variation in class sentiments: class socialization, college socialization,or class aspirations?

The strength of social actors’ class sentiments are closely tied to life experiences thatresult from access, or a lack thereof, to the resources that contribute to economic security.These class-based experiences can be positive, for example, a worker gets a raise or a pro-motion. They can also be negative, for example, a worker is laid off or demoted. Class sen-timents clearly reflect extant socioeconomic positions. Most research that examines therelationship between class position and class sentiments concentrates on working adults’current occupation, income, and employment history (Wallace and Junisbai 2004). How-ever, when considering young adults, including university students who have not yet per-manently entered the labor force, it is imperative to recognize that class position and thesentiments associated with class are anything but fixed. To the contrary, class sentimentsare in the process of formation.

University students are not wholly or directly responsible for their current situationor their educational or economic status. As Kingston, Hubbard, Lapp, Schroeder, andWilson (2003) contend, even “educational attainment is connected to both family originsand economic destinations” (p. 53). Those with relatively meager or abundant resources,which are linked to their socioeconomic origins, may not reveal the class sentiments thatreflect their backgrounds. Students from a working-class family may anticipate careers inbusiness or the professions, and thus may foresee a white-collar future and try to performmiddle-class tastes. Conversely, some students from more privileged backgrounds mayadopt attitudes and beliefs that are in opposition to their class interests, and they mayimagine a utopian future in which equality and justice will prevail. Thus, college students’class sentiments may lie in the past or in the future, and they may be significantly affectedby uncertainty about future economic security.

College experiences also influence beliefs and attitudes. Students with differentmajors, electrical engineering or history, for example, are required to study different waysof thinking about the world. The core curriculum for engineering students includesapplied mathematics and science courses, whereas the core curriculum for liberal artsstudents features language, philosophy, and courses on social issues. In university




47


473

campuses, student experiences vary considerably, largely because of the major or pro-gram of study that students select.

The future prospects for college graduates have changed over time. The changing skillrequirements for occupations, combined with the increased availability of college loans,allow a growing number of students from less privileged backgrounds to attend publiccolleges and universities. Whether a student comes from a working-class or middle-classbackground, the availability of a college education may help level the playing field ofoccupational possibilities (Yamaguchi 1983; Hout 1988; Ishida, Muller, and Ridge 1995).Some researchers argue that college graduates can anticipate being far removed frommanual labor and worries about financial security. However, many graduates may notenter secure and financially rewarding careers. The recent economic decline and the largenumber of white-collar workers affected by corporate downsizing may remind studentsthat all workers are vulnerable to the possibility of a layoff or termination (Perrucci andWysong 2003). Wallace and Junisbai (2004) found that a worsening employment situa-tion and experiences with a layoff positively influenced workers’ class consciousness.Hence, the potential for future job and financial security may be related to the student’schoice of field of study, which may in turn contribute to students’ social class sentiments.

When studying class sentiments, researchers (Jackman and Jackman 1983; Wright1997; Grusky and Sorensen 1998) conceptualize class as an individual’s relation to themeans of production as an owner or employee, or to their occupation. As a result, col-lege students do not have an acquired or a direct class position. They are pursuing a col-lege degree to achieve a class position, and thereby increase their access to the resourcesavailable to them over time. Rather than focus solely on adults in the labor market, weargue that it is imperative to examine the class sentiments of young adults who are pre-paring to enter the labor force to understand how class sentiments in formation con-tribute to the reproduction of social relations.

1

University students, without an achievedclass position, may base their class sentiments on access to the resources they had whilegrowing up (

class socialization

), the resources and experiences they have in school (

col-lege socialization

); and on the expectations they have about their future economic orsocial position in society (

class aspirations

). To illustrate, a public university studentfrom a working-class background who plans to be a successful business manager mayhave class sentiments that are more focused on their class of destination. The student’santicipatory position must be taken into account when studying the formation of classsentiments. Figure 1 summarizes the conceptual model that we use to examine the for-mation of class sentiments.

CLASS LOCATION AND CLASS SENTIMENTS

Over the last 20 years, inequality between those at the top and those at the bottom of theincome hierarchy has grown to levels larger now than at any other period since World WarII (Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt 2001). Over this time period, high-wage jobs have beenlost and moved to areas with fewer regulations and lower wage expectations. Blue-collarjobs have been eliminated and workers in the white-collar sector are susceptible to layoffs

474


47




and terminations. The proportion of white-collar layoffs has increased to nearly 40 per-cent of job terminations (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1998). The widespread increase in jobinsecurity might be expected to lead to increased awareness of class interests on the partof those most threatened. Although there has been a substantial decrease in the availabil-ity of economic resources to millions of individuals over the last 20 years, there have beenno major movements by the population at large to bring about changes to stop the grow-ing inequality. How do these changes affect social class sentiments? Or, as Wallace andJunisbai (2004) ask: How does the new economy, characterized by corporate downsizing,by contingent work, and by a decrease in employment security for several groups of work-ers affect class consciousness or class sentiments?

Despite increasing income inequality and job insecurity, some scholars argue thatthere has been a decline in class awareness, and they see little connection between theworldviews and sentiments of individuals and their class positions (Kingston 2000). Wecontend that earlier research failed to find class awareness or consciousness because it wasconducted during the 1960s and 1970s, when there was less income inequality, greaterwage growth for blue-collar workers, and more opportunities for upward mobility. In thisstudy, we focus on public university students who have not yet found their place in theclass structure, and who may be aware of changing patterns of opportunity and inequalityin contemporary society.

Class Socialization

Class socialization refers to the everyday experiences associated with a person’s class loca-tion that affect beliefs and attitudes about the structures of inequality in society. Personsborn into a privileged class location or a working-class location will have different mate-rial resources available to them, different social networks, and different life chances oropportunities. They are exposed to formal agents of socialization such as schools andmedia that will directly and indirectly shape ideas and beliefs about various types of ine-quality, their causes, and remedies. A research literature indicates that children developan awareness of inequality and class distinctions at very early ages and accumulateadditional knowledge throughout adolescence and young adulthood (Stendler 1949;Simmons and Rosenberg 1971; Tudor 1971; Orum and Cohen 1973; Cummings andTaebel 1978; O’Connor 1999).

Despite the existence of social actors’ awareness of inequality and class distinctions,there are competing views in the literature about whether class socialization provides aconnection between class location and class sentiments. For example, Wright (1997)examines the determinants of class consciousness in the United States, Sweden, and Japan

FIGURE 1.

Conceptual Model to Explain Social-Class Sentiments in Formation.

Social class sentiments

Government responsibility Corporate influences Trust in corporations

Class socialization

Parental educationParental occupationParental incomeParental job security

College socialization

Liberal artsManagementEducation orEngineering

Social class aspirations

Anticipated occupationAnticipated incomeAnticipated income in 10 yearsAnticipated job security




47


475

and reports that the influence of class location on class identity is greater than the influ-ence of income, friendship patterns, or past class experiences. Although there is variabil-ity in class consciousness across the three countries, his general conclusion is that “classlocation and experiences do systematically shape consciousness” (Wright 1997:247). Acontrasting view is provided by Kingston (2000:197) who reviews existing survey-basedresearch and concludes that “there is little connection between class location and classconsciousness.” Kingston’s argument is premised on the view that distinctive, class-basedcultures and political commitments are undermined by opportunities for mobility andthe existence of multiple identities among the working class.

The public university students in this study have experienced 20–22 years of socializa-tion within a particular class location that is based on their parents’ social class.

2

The classsentiments of these students do not yet lie in their own workplace experiences, becausework has probably been limited and temporary. What they have experienced are the con-sequences of the material resources that are connected with parental educational attain-ment and occupation, and with parental job promotions or layoffs, unemployment, orunion activity. The influence of class socialization leads us to expect that public universitystudents who have experienced relatively limited material resources or lived throughperiods of parental job insecurity will have somewhat different social class sentimentsthan students who grew up with greater material resources and greater financial security.This expectation corresponds to research that finds that public university students whohave been adversely affected by economic hardship have distinctive reasons for attendingcollege and plans for work and geographic mobility after graduation (Bee and Beronja1987).

College Socialization

Human and social capital arguments (see, e.g., Robison, Schmid, and Siles 2002; Buerkleand Guseva 2002) contend that college offers the opportunity to advance beyond parentaloccupational attainment and economic status. The acquisition of credentials and skillsmakes a person more attractive to employers and presumably more able to perform thetasks required of the occupation. Human capital theory (Becker 1975) proposes that asworkers increase their skills they will be more highly compensated for those skills. Humanand social capital perspectives are often invoked to explain why college graduates havemore job security and autonomy, and earn approximately 50 percent more than non-college graduates (Mishel et al. 2001).

Over a 30-year period, from 1966 to 1996, the purpose for young adults entering col-lege changed significantly. In 1966, approximately 80 percent of students entering collegestated that “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” was the main reason for entering,while being well off financially was important for less than 45 percent of incoming stu-dents (Astin et al. 1997). Beginning in the late 1970s, the stated reasons for attending col-lege shifted. Only 42.1 percent articulated a “philosophy for life” type of purpose forentering college, whereas 74.1 percent stated that being well off financially was the keypurpose for college (Astin et al. 1997). Rather than viewing college as a time to grow intel-lectually, students increasingly see higher education as a springboard to prosperity and

476


47




economic mobility. For many, college is assumed as an extended training period to gaincredentials and become more attractive on the job market.

Although entering students may perceive the university as an opportunity for finan-cial improvement, there are other changes that affect students during their college oruniversity years. Attitudes and values, especially those related to social issues andsociopolitical ideas, tend to change throughout the college career. Researchers consis-tently find that a university education is positively associated with an increase in liberal-ism among students on certain issues—such as the environment and universal healthcare—but not others, such as supporting increased taxes for the wealthy (Pascarella andTerenzini 1991; Astin 1993; Dey 1996, 1997). Along with changes in liberalism, thecollege years are associated with an increased sense of civic and social responsibility(Pascarella and Terenzini 1991).

Changes in the emphasis on financial motives for college attendance and changes insocial attitudes while in college do not influence students alike across the various aca-demic majors. Some research finds that majoring in engineering has an inverse relation-ship to the likelihood of developing a commitment to a philosophy of life, liberalism, andfeminism. It has a positive relationship to the likelihood of embracing financial improve-ment as the main reason for attending college (Astin 1993). Majoring in the social sci-ences is found to significantly increase one’s ideals toward social responsibility, whereasbusiness, engineering, and education majors showed little movement toward endorsingsocial responsibility ideals (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991).

Group identification has an important influence on the way social actors, includingpublic university students, view the world around them. Hunt (1996), studying race andethnic group differences in poverty attitudes and beliefs, found that individuals identifywith the generalized experiences of the groups to which they belong. Individuals’ atti-tudes and beliefs differ significantly by race and ethnic group membership. Based on theHunt study, we infer that university students’ class sentiments correspond, in part, to thedominant views of similar others enrolled in their major programs of study.

Class Aspirations

Economic mobility in the United States, according to Kingston (2000), is one of the majorexplanations for the lack of a relationship between class location and class sentiments.The evolving economy may continue to produce changes within sectors that increase thenumber of opportunities for inter- and intragenerational class mobility, further weaken-ing the influence of past experiences on class sentiments. Rather than focusing on thedifficulties of the past, public university students could be focused on their futureoccupations, which would affect their class sentiments. Bee and Beronja (1987) foundthat students who were adversely affected by plant closings where their parents workedwanted to move to a different geographical region upon graduation, suggesting that theywanted to get away from past negative experiences. Some public university students comefrom backgrounds that are characterized as lacking secure resources. If they expect to bewell off in the future, past experiences may play only a moderate role in affecting theirsocial class sentiments.




47


477

Students not only use higher education as a means to become financially secure. Someshow a tendency to self-enhance or exaggerate their abilities and opportunities. Smithand Powell (1990) find that students whose parents, relative to others, have lower educa-tional attainment levels anticipate a greater return from their college education. As aresult, students from less advantaged families may inaccurately assume that they will bebetter off financially after college than what they are likely to experience. Students frommore disadvantaged backgrounds may develop a somewhat false sense of security as wellas idealized notions of what to expect upon completion of a degree. In 1996, a recordnumber of first-year students said that they needed to get a job to pay for college (Astinet al. 1997), suggesting that they come from families with modest incomes. Many publicuniversity students may form class sentiments that are based more on an ideal future thanon a past reality.

MEASURING CLASS LOCATION

Because social actors in different class locations have disparate access to resources, theyare likely to hold different class sentiments. Thus, it is important for this study to measureclass location. Although many perspectives for creating class maps are debated, they allhave the purpose of placing individuals with similar access to material and otherresources into the same class location.

Class locations are social structural positions that are not equivalent to the individu-als who occupy those locations (Wright 1997). Class locations remain, despite the mobil-ity that particular individuals experience. Social class theories generally focus ondimensions of occupations or work as the basis for developing class maps (Jackman andJackman 1983; Wright 1997; Grusky and Sorensen 1998). We contend that it is importantto consider the different approaches that researchers use to devise class maps becauseclass theories are not alike in explaining the empirical relationship found, or not found,between class location and class sentiments. The problem may lie in the formulation ofthe class maps.

The classic Marxist approach identifies classes based on their relationship to themeans of production as owners of capital and sellers of labor power, producing capitalistand working classes. Because the current economy is composed of a large number ofoccupations that exercise control over production without necessarily being owners ofproduction, unambiguous classification of occupations into a Marxist class map is prob-lematic. Moreover, there are substantial variations in levels of income and power amongindividuals with similar occupations, making it difficult to theorize class interests andclass sentiments based on location in the system of production. Neither position in therelations of production based on ownership, nor occupation based on prestige or somefunctional classification, is adequate for identifying the basis upon which people derivetheir class-based interests.

Wright (1997) provides a systematic reformulation of the classic Marxist model bycreating a class map based on three axes: property, authority, and skill. The result is a 12-cell matrix of class locations that distinguishes members of the middle class—those with

478


47




contradictory class locations based on ownership and control—into locations intendedto reflect their equal access to resources. Like the orthodox Marxist model, the Wrightmodel does not take into account the high degree of variability between individuals insimilar occupations or with similar skills. For example, individuals with a college educa-tion or the same occupation could be placed in the same class location even though accessto other resources, such as high income or elite education, varies greatly.

Grusky and Sorensen (1998) attempt to alleviate the problem by focusing on occupa-tional groupings or associations as a basis for class-based interests. On the surface, theidea is promising, but disaggregating occupational associations and occupations stillplaces individuals with different economic and social resources into similar classlocations.

Self-placement, or measuring subjective perceptions of class location, is used by someresearchers to locate individuals in a class structure. Those who promote a subjectiveapproach believe that most social actors do not think of their class location in terms ofoccupation or relation to the means of production. One key problem with the self-placement approach is that individual’s perceptions are influenced by the way the surveyquestions are asked (Kingston 2000). Moreover, variations in self-placement may occurbecause most surveyed general population respondents base their ideas of class onincome, rather than their relation to the means of production (Coleman and Rainwater1978).

We contend that measures of class location should represent multiple dimensions,including a measure of income or some approximation of individual and family eco-nomic resources, and should include, although not rely solely, on occupation or the indi-vidual’s relation to the means of production.

Because we are studying public university students who are not yet in the labor forceor earning income on a full-time basis, we follow an approach that constructs class mapsbased on the individual’s total resources over time (Perrucci and Wysong 2003). Thisapproach recognizes that individuals who have the same occupation and similar educa-tions may indeed have opportunities to earn and accumulate vastly different amounts ofwealth, and have dramatically different degrees of occupational security over their life-times. The Perrucci and Wysong (2003) model returns to the most important point inclass analysis by putting individuals who are alike in the same class location.

The respondents in this study were queried about their class origins based on theirparents’ education, occupation, income, and job security. We combine four variables tomeasure parental class location as a proxy for

class socialization

. Respondents were alsoasked about expectations regarding their own future class location, based on anticipatedeconomic resources at graduation and 10 years after graduation, intended occupation,and anticipated job security. Four variables were combined to measure

class aspirations

.Those who expect to work in prestigious occupations, earn relatively high salaries (imme-diately following graduation as well as in the future), and enjoy job security are placed insimilar aspired class locations, while those who lack these resources are placed into differ-ent class locations. Our method for constructing class location indicators, compared toother methods, places individuals with similar class-based experiences, or expectations




47


479

about class positions into the same class locations. Through this method, we hope toincrease the likelihood of finding clearly defined social class sentiments that are related toclass location.

RESEARCH METHODS

We used a systematic sampling design to represent undergraduate students at a publicuniversity who were enrolled in four

3

of its schools (management, engineering, educa-tion, and liberal arts) during the spring 2002 semester. We chose the four schools toapproximate variation in college socialization. Based on the published course sched-ule, we first selected departments from each of the schools that offer undergraduatecourses. Next, we selected the highest advanced undergraduate course in each of thedepartments selected. These courses are designed for (and often limit enrollment to)third- and fourth-year undergraduates, the type of individuals we wanted to surveybecause they are either anticipating employment in the very near future or graduatetraining in preparation for specific occupations. We eliminated from the samplingframe all classes not taught in the traditional classroom setting, such as laboratory orstudio courses.

The faculty members assigned to teach the courses were contacted and asked to allowtheir students to participate in the study. If a faculty member declined, we selected thecourse listed closest to it on the course schedule. Our intention was to administer, in theclassroom setting, a survey to a minimum sample of 50 students enrolled in four differentundergraduate schools. All told, 152 management students, 56 engineering students, 52education students, and 103 liberal arts students participated.

4

Surveys were adminis-tered to groups of classroom students. The procedure precludes an estimation of a refusalrate, but it generated 363 completed surveys with no missing data problems.

5

Survey Instrument

Students completed a self-administered survey anonymously, following a protocolapproved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. Items measured the students’ sexand age, reports of parents’ educational attainment level, income and occupation, stu-dents’ anticipated occupation, income, and job security, and social class sentiments.

To measure dimensions of parental class location, we first asked student respondentsto “think of [their] primary caretaker as the person in [their] household whose employ-ment contributed to the greatest part of the family income when [they] were 16.” Weasked them to indicate their parent’s occupation and the company or organization forwhich he or she worked. The Hollingshead occupational status index was used to code theresponses.

6

To measure perceptions of family income,

7

respondents were told, “In [our]state, the typical household income is $38,000. Please indicate where your family’sincome was, when you were 16, compared to the typical family by circling the appropriateX.” The ratings were coded on a 7-point scale, ranging from the bottom anchor, whichwas labeled “$20,000 or less” to the top anchor, which was labeled “$100,000 ormore.” For analysis, we categorized three levels of parental income: below average,

480


47




average, or above average. To measure parental employment and income security, weasked student respondents to indicate if their primary caretaker had been unemployedduring the years before they attended the university. Responses ranged from “no” (coded5 to represent high employment security) to “unemployed for more than 1 year” (coded1 to represent relatively low employment security).

Class Sentiment Items

The survey contained 11 questions to measure social class sentiments, that is, the inter-nalized cognitive structures or mental states, similar to the habitus, which reflect social-class interests. Class sentiments represent a link between structure and agency and are aprecondition for class consciousness. The same 11 questions were used in two prior stud-ies that were designed, in part, for measuring class sentiments in adult populations. Onestudy examined how workers and their families responded to losing their jobs because ofa plant closing (Perrucci et al. 1988). The other was a general population public opinionsurvey that measured attitudes about government and work (Social Research Institute2001).

In the prior studies, factor analytic procedures and reliability measures were used todetermine how well responses to the 11 questions represented three distinctive class sen-timents scales. The three resulting scales are (1) government responsibility, representingbeliefs social actors hold about the need to redistribute wealth equitably; (2) influence ofcorporations, representing beliefs regarding corporate influence over politics, profits andwages, and American life; and (3) trust in corporations, representing beliefs that corpo-rations engage in appropriate actions to benefit workers and society.

Student respondents in this study, like the research participants in the prior studies,responded to each of the questions on a 5-point scale, with responses ranging from“strongly disagree” (coded 1) to “strongly agree” (coded 5).

8

We created summed andmean scales to represent the three types of social class sentiments.

RESULTS

Class Sentiment Scales

As Table 1 shows, alpha reliability coefficients range from .63 to .66. The governmentresponsibility scale (

α

=

.64) includes responses to three items. A relatively high meanscore indicates that the respondent perceives that the government should “do more” tomitigate the consequences of social class inequalities by redistributing wealth.

The influence of corporations scale (

α

=

.66) includes responses to five items. A rela-tively high mean score indicates the belief that large corporations have “too much influ-ence” on work and salaries, politics, and the quality of life in the United States.

The trust in corporations scale (

α

=

.63) includes responses to three items. A relativelyhigh mean score reflects a pro-corporation class sentiment, or a belief that corporations“do what’s right” for all social classes in the United States.

Table 2 displays a correlation matrix of the class sentiments scales. Those who believethe government should do more to relieve social inequalities are more likely to trust that




47


481

TABLE 1.

Social-Class Sentiments Scales: Government Responsibility, Influence of Corporations,

and Trust in Corporations (N

=

363)

Scale items and statistics

Mean (standard

deviation)

A. Government responsibility scale (3 items) alpha

=

0.64

1. The government should end unemployment by hiring everyone who

does not have a job.

2.05 (1.01)

2. The government should see that every family has enough money to

have a decent standard of living.

3.07 (1.08)

3. The government should limit the amount of money an individual

earns each year.

1.66 (0.90)

Scale score (range

=

3–15) 7.13 (2.42)

Scale mean score 2.37 (0.81)

B. Influence of corporations scale (5 items) alpha

=

0.66

1. Corporations have too much influence on American politics. 3.49 (0.94)

2. Workers should have more power in their relationships with their

employers.

3.55 (0.85)

3. Corporations have too much influence on American life. 3.25 (0.99)

4. More emphasis should be given to workers’ salaries and benefits than

corporate profits.

3.56 (0.89)

5. It should be illegal to move a plant out of the United States to seek

higher profits.

2.76 (1.23)

Scale score (range

=

5–25) 16.90 (3.32)


C. Trust in corporations scale (3 items) alpha

=

.63

1. The government should reduce taxes for big business. 2.50 (0.96)

2. I trust corporations to do what is right. 2.47 (1.01)

3. The interests of corporations are generally the same as their workers. 2.41 (0.88)

Scale score (range

=

3–15) 7.15 (2.29)


Notes: All items are coded on a 5-point scale. Code 1

=

strongly disagree; code 5

=

strongly agree.

TABLE 2.

Correlation Matrix of Class Sentiment Scales (N

=

363)

Government

responsibility scale

Influence of

corporations scale

Trust in

corporations scale

Government responsibility scale .434** .135*

Influence of corporations scale

−

.313**

Trust in corporations scale

*

p

<

.05, **

p

<

.01 (two-tailed test).

b, unstandardized regression coefficient; s.e., standard error; t, t-value.

482


47




large corporations “do what’s right” for all social classes. Those who tend to think thatcorporations have too much influence also tend to trust corporations less.

Background Characteristics and Perceptions of Parent’s Social Class Location

Table 3 shows that the overall sample is 49.6 percent female respondents. Respondentstend to be 21 or 22 years old. More than half of the public university students (56.5 per-cent) indicated that their parents completed college degrees or advanced degrees.Approximately 50 percent of the students indicated that their family income was abovethe state’s average, while 22 percent reported that their family income was less than thestate’s average income. Most of the respondents (77.4 percent) reported that their parentshad not experienced any long-term period of unemployment. Nearly 64 percent indi-cated that their primary caretaker’s occupation is a manager or an executive.

We examine our first research question (i.e., how do student respondents characterizetheir parent’s class location) by inspecting the distributions of (1) parental education, (2)income, (3) occupation, and (4) employment security and by creating a composite mea-sure of the students’ perceptions of their parent’s social class location. First, we identifiedcases in each of the four separate distributions that fell at or above the midpoint of eachof the four distributions and coded them “1.” Cases falling below the midpoint of eachdistribution were coded “0” on each variable. Second, we summed the “1, 0” scores fromthe four separate distributions to generate a composite or summary score (ranging fromzero to four) to represent parental social class location. A zero score on the compositemeasure indicates that responses to the four questions regarding the four dimensions ofparental class location fell below the midpoint of each of the four distributions. A score offour indicates that the case fell at or above the midpoint on all four variables or dimen-sions of parent’s class location.

Approximately 5 percent of the sample scored zero on the composite measure ofparental class location, and 15.5 percent of the sample fell below the midpoint in three outof the four distributions. Twenty-three percent of the cases had a score of two, and 22.4percent of the cases had a score of three. For approximately one-third of the sample,respondents indicated that their parent (or primary caretaker) had an educational attain-ment level, an income level, a degree of employment security, and an occupation that fellabove the midpoint of all four distributions of variables that we used to measure distinc-tive dimensions of social class location. We find that most public university students didnot enjoy a level of

class socialization

that is associated with the most advantaged socialclass locations.

The second research question (i.e., how do students characterize their anticipatedclass location) was operationalized with a series of four survey questions. Three of thequestions are parallel to the items that measure parental social class location. The respon-dents indicated their anticipated occupation, their anticipated income following gradua-tion, their anticipated income 10 years later, and their expectation of employmentsecurity. As Table 3 shows, only 42 percent of the respondents think that they will earnmore than the state’s average income at graduation. However, 85 percent of therespondents anticipate that they will earn more than the state’s average income 10 years




47


483

TABLE 3.

Respondent Background Characteristics, Perceptions of Parent’s Social Class Location,

and Anticipated Social Class Location (N

=

363)

Variable

Mean or percentage

(percent)

Respondent background characteristics

Female respondent 49.6

Male respondent 50.4

Age 21.75 (standard

deviation

=

2.52)

Class socialization: perceptions of separate indicators of parent’s social class location

Parent’s education

High school or some college 43.5

College degree or advanced degree 56.5

Perceived parent’s income level

Less than state’s average income 22.1

State’s average income 26.9

More than state’s average income 50.4

Parent experienced unemployment for one year

No 77.4

Yes 22.6

Parent’s occupation

Executive 29.5

Manager 34.1

Administrative personnel 18.4

Clerical and sales 3.8

Skilled employee 6.6

Semi-skilled employee 1.4

Unskilled worker 6.1

Composite measure of parental class location (sum of parent’s education, income level,

unemployment experience, and occupation)

0

=

below midpoint of distributions on four indicators of

parental class location

5

1

=

at midpoint or above of distribution on only one indicator

of parental class location

15.5

2

=

at midpoint or above of distributions on two indicators of


23.5

3

=

at midpoint or above of distributions on three indicators of


22.4

4

=

at midpoint or above of distributions on four indicators of


33.5

College socialization: school or major program of study

Management 41.9

Engineering 15.4

Education 14.3

Liberal arts 28.4

484


47




Anticipated class location: four indicators of respondent’s anticipated or aspired

social class location

Anticipated income at graduation




Anticipated income in 10 years




Anticipated occupation

Executive 47.9

Manager 44.5

Administrative personnel 4.3

Clerical and sales 0.4

Skilled employee 2.8

Semi-skilled employee —

Unskilled worker 0.2

Perceived future job security

Very secure 22.3

Somewhat secure 65.0

Insecure 11.3

Composite measure of aspired or anticipated class location (sum of income at graduation,

income in 10 years, occupation, and job security)

0 = below midpoint of distributions on four indicators of

anticipated class location

0.5

1 = at midpoint or above of distribution on only one indicator

of anticipated class location

20.6

2 = at midpoint or above of distributions on two indicators of


17.5

3 = at midpoint or above of distributions on three indicators of


27.9

4 = at midpoint or above of distributions on four indicators of


33.5

Variable

Mean or percentage

(percent)

Note: Parent and anticipated occupation coded on Hollingshead’s 7-point scale: 1 = higher

executive, proprietors, and major professionals; 2 = business managers and lesser profession-

als; 3 = administrative personnel, small business owners, and minor professionals; 4 = clerical

and sales workers, and technicians; 5 = skilled manual employees; 6 = machine operators and

semiskilled employees; 7 = unskilled employees.

b, unstandardized regression coefficient; s.e., standard error; t, t-value.

TABLE 3. Continued

Ted M. Brimeyer, JoAnn Miller, and Robert Perrucci Class Sentiments in Formation

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 471–495 © 2006 Midwest Sociological Society 485

after graduation. They tend to anticipate occupations that rank higher in status than theirparents’ occupations. However, they perceive significantly less job security compared towhat they report their parents experienced. Only 22.3 percent feel very secure aboutfuture employment, believing that they will not experience significant, involuntary jobloss. This finding supports the notion that while they are public university students,young adults, arguably members of the “new working class,” subjectively recognize social-class inequalities that imply near-future occupation and economic insecurities (Perrucciand Wysong 2003:318).

We also constructed a composite measure of social class aspirations, or anticipatedsocial class, by identifying the respondents who think that they will experience income atgraduation, income 10 years after graduation, an anticipated occupation, and employ-ment security that falls above or below the midpoint of the distribution of each dimen-sion of class aspirations. The resulting distribution of composite scores, representing therespondents’ aspired class location, shows that 21 percent of the respondents had zero orone scores on the composite measure of class aspirations, and 33.5 percent of the studentrespondents had scores of 4 on the anticipated social class measure.

Table 4 addresses our third research question: What is the relationship betweenparental class location, or class socialization, and the respondents’ social class aspirations,or anticipated class location? We find a significant association (gamma = .218) betweenthe respondents’ social class aspirations and their class socialization. The association is inthe direction that is predicted by the Smith and Powell (1990) study that found that col-lege students from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds anticipate a relatively higherreturn from education, compared to other students. Among the 122 student respondentswho believe that they will, in the future, experience the highest social class location (com-pared to their peers), only 41.8 percent report that their parent’s social class location wasas advantaged as their aspired social class location. More than 58 percent of the respon-dents who anticipate the highest social class location perceive that their parents experi-enced a lower class location than what they will achieve.

Class Socialization, College Socialization, and Social Class AspirationsThis study examines empirically the notion that university students’ social class senti-ments may lie in the past, or in anticipation of their future, and they may be significantlyaffected by uncertainty about future financial security. College socialization may also playa part. Based on the association shown in Table 4, we also expect that class socializationand class aspirations may interact to affect students’ sentiments. Because we recognizethat gender and social class are interconnected (Wright 2001), we control for gender in aseries of stepwise regression models that we specify to address our fourth research ques-tion: Does class socialization, college socialization, or social class aspirations explain vari-ation in class sentiments?

In Table 5, using a stepwise method, we regress the mean of the government respon-sibility scale on variables that correspond to the conceptual model that we present inFigure 1. Male respondents are coded “1” and female respondents are coded “0.” Classsocialization is represented by the composite measure of parental class location (coded

486 The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 471–495 © 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Class Sentiments in Formation Ted M. Brimeyer, JoAnn Miller, and Robert Perrucci

TAB

LE 4

.A

nti

cipa

ted

Cla

ss L

ocat

ion

Ass

ocia

ted

wit

h P

aren

t’s C

lass

Loc

atio

n: D

istr

ibu

tion

s of

Com

posi

te S

core

s (N

= 3

63)

Stu

den

t’s A

nti

cipa

ted

Cla

ss L

ocat

ion

Pare

nt’s

cla

ss lo

cati

on

Low

est s

core

on

com

posi

te

mea

sure

(1)

Low

er s

core

on

com

posi

te

mea

sure

(2)

Hig

her

sco

re o

n

com

posi

te

mea

sure

(3)

Hig

hes

t sco

re o

n

com

posi

te

mea

sure

(4)

Tota

l

Hig

hes

t sco

re o

n c

ompo

site

mea

sure

(4)

22 (

28.5

per

cen

t)16

(25

.0 p

erce

nt)

34 (

34.0

per

cen

t)51

(41

.8 p

erce

nt)

123

Hig

her

sco

re o

n c

ompo

site

mea

sure

(3)

10 (

13.0

per

cen

t)18

(28

.1 p

erce

nt)

22 (

22.0

per

cen

t)31

(25

.4 p

erce

nt)

81

Low

er s

core

on

com

posi

te m

easu

re (

2)21

(27

.3 p

erce

nt)

17 (

26.6

per

cen

t)22

(22

.0 p

erce

nt)

25 (

20.5

per

cen

t)85

Low

est s

core

on

com

posi

te m

easu

re (

1)24

(31

.2 p

erce

nt)

13 (

20.3

per

cen

t)22

(22

.0 p

erce

nt)

15 (

12.3

per

cen

t)74

N77

6410

012

236

3

Gam

ma

.218

*

*p <

.001

.

Not

es:

Th

e co

mpo

site

mea

sure

of

pare

nt’s

soc

ial c

lass

loca

tion

rep

rese

nts

par

enta

l edu

cati

on, i

nco

me,

occ

upa

tion

, an

d em

ploy

men

t se

curi

ty. T

he

hig

hes

t

scor

e (4

) mea

ns t

hat

the

pare

nt f

ell a

bove

the

mid

poin

t in

the

sam

ple’

s dis

trib

uti

on o

f eac

h o

f th

e fo

ur v

aria

bles

mea

sure

d. T

he

com

posi

te m

easu

re o

f stu

den

t’s

soci

al c

lass

loca

tion

rep

rese

nts

est

imat

ed in

com

e at

gra

duat

ion

, est

imat

ed in

com

e in

10

year

s, o

ccu

pati

onal

asp

irat

ion

, an

d pe

rcep

tion

of

job

secu

rity

. Th

e

hig

hes

t sco

re (

4) m

ean

s th

at th

e st

ude

nt f

ell a

bove

the

mid

poin

t in

the

sam

ple’

s di

stri

buti

on o

f eac

h o

f th

e fo

ur

vari

able

s m

easu

red.

b, u

nst

anda

rdiz

ed r

egre

ssio

n c

oeffi

cien

t; s

.e.,

stan

dard

err

or; t

, t-v

alu

e.



TAB

LE 5

.St

epw

ise

Reg

ress

ion

Mod

el: M

ean

of G

over

nm

ent R

espo

nsi

bilit

y Sc

ale

Inde

pen

den

t Var

iabl

es

Mod

el 1

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 2

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 3

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 4

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 5

b (s

. e.)

t

1.M

ale

resp

onde

nt

−0.2

58 (

0.08

5)

−3.0

45**

−0.2

50 (

0.08

4)

−2.9

65**

−0.3

06 (

.098

)

−3.1

86**

−0.3

40 (

0.10

6)

−3.2

15**

*

−0.3

25 (

.105

)

−3.0

81**

2.C

lass

soc

ializ

atio

n−0

.169

(0.

089)

−1.9

14

−0.1

73 (

0.08

7)

−1.9

89*

−0.1

80 (

.088

)

−2.0

55*

0.11

4 (0

.150

)

0.76

2

3.C

olle

ge s

ocia

lizat

ion

:

Man

agem

ent m

ajor

−0.4

88 (

0.12

0)

−4.0

52**

*

−0.4

97 (

0.12

1)

−4.1

05**

*

−0.4

78 (

0.12

0)

−3.9

66**

*

Libe

ral a

rts

maj

or−0

.171

(0.

104)

−1.6

37

−0.1

60(.

106)

−1.5

17

−0.1

32 (

0.10

5)

−1.2

51

4.So

cial

cla

ss a

spir

atio

ns

0.07

8 (0

.101

)

0.77

1

0.21

3 (0

.115

)

1.85

1

5.In

tera

ctio

n: C

lass

soc

ializ

atio

n ×

soc

ial c

lass

asp

irat

ion

s−0

.444

(0.

184)

−2.4

12*

Inte

rcep

t2.

525

(0.0

64)

39.5

62**

*

2.57

7 (0

.069

)

37.2

12**

*

2.74

9 (0

.102

)

27.0

13**

*

2.72

0 (0

.108

)

25.0

71**

*

2.62

0 (0

.115

)

22.6

89**

*

Adj

. R2

0.02

20.

030

0.06

70.

066

0.07

9

F9.

273*

*6.

503*

*7.

512*

**6.

122*

**6.

141*

**

*p <

.05,

**p

< .0

1, *

**p

< .0

01.

b, u

nst

anda

rdiz

ed r

egre

ssio

n c

oeffi

cien

t; s

.e.,

stan

dard

err

or; t

, t-v

alu

e.



on a 0–4 scale). We included a set of dummy variables to represent the student’s major,entering management and liberal arts majors, and omitting the combination of engi-neering and education students for comparison.9 The respondent’s class aspirations aremeasured by the 0–4-point composite scale that summarizes the student’s relative antici-pated income at graduation, income in 10 years, occupation, and job security. Becausewe are interested in how class socialization and class aspirations may interact to affectsocial class sentiments, we created an interaction term, which is included in the finalmodel.10

We find, as shown in all of the models summarized in Table 5, that women, relative tomen, think that the government should “do more” to lessen the negative consequences ofsocial class inequalities. In models 3 and 4, albeit not in model 2, we find that class social-ization affects government responsibility sentiments. Students whose parents enjoyedrelatively high social class locations, compared to the other student respondents, are lesslikely to agree that the government should “do more” to ameliorate the consequences ofsocial inequalities.

Students who major in management, representing one of the measures of collegesocialization, compared to engineering and education students (the omitted category)tend to disagree or strongly disagree with the sentiment that the government should “domore.” We do not find a significant net effect for the composite variable that representsclass aspirations. It is possible that the management major in the regression modelexplains the variance in the government responsibility scale scores that could have beenexplained by class aspirations. (We note that the adjusted R2 value for model 4 decreasesslightly from the adjusted R2 value for model 3.) In the final model, however, we find thatthe interaction of class aspirations and class socialization significantly affects governmentresponsibility sentiments. Students who aspire to a relatively high social class locationand whose parents experienced a relatively high social class location, compared to theother student respondents, indicate more disagreement with statements indicating thatthe government should “do more” to reduce the problems of social class inequalities inthe United States.

In Table 6, we use the same stepwise regression method described above to explainvariance in the mean values of the influence of corporations scale. In three of the fivemodels, we find that women, compared to men, think that large corporations have “toomuch influence” in American society. The gender effect, however, is not significant inmodels that include indicators of college socialization and class aspirations.

All five models summarized in Table 6 communicate one clear message: It is collegesocialization, rather than class socialization or class aspirations, that dominates the socialclass sentiments that focus on the influence of American corporations.11 Managementstudents, compared to engineering or education students, tend to disagree with state-ments that claim corporations have “too much influence.” Liberal arts students, relativeto other students, tend to agree or strongly agree with declarations indicating that largecorporations are too influential in key social institutions, that is, politics and work.

The third type of class sentiment, trust in corporations, represents beliefs that largecorporations “do the right thing” for all social classes. Table 7 summarizes the stepwise



TAB

LE 6

.St

epw

ise

Reg

ress

ion

Mod

el: M

ean

of I

nfl

uen

ce o

f Cor

pora

tion

s Sc

ale

Inde

pen

den

t var

iabl

es

Mod

el 1

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 2

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 3

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 4

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 5

b (s

. e.)

t

1.M

ale

resp

onde

nt

−0.3

60 (

0.06

8)

−5.3

02**

*

−0.3

55 (

0.06

8)

−5.2

35**

*

−0.2

03 (

0.07

6)

−2.6

58**

−0.1

49 (

0.08

4)

−1.7

83

−0.1

49 (

0.08

4)

−1.7

71

2.C

lass

soc

ializ

atio

n−0

.111

(0.

071)

−1.5

61

−0.0

83 (

0.06

9)

−1.2

02

−0.0

73 (

0.06

9)

−1.0

49

−0.0

74 (

0.12

0)

−0.5

36

3.C

olle

ge s

ocia

lizat

ion

:

Man

agem

ent m

ajor

−0.2

10 (

0.09

6)

−2.1

94*

−0.1

96 (

0.09

6)

−2.0

43*

−0.1

95 (

0.09

6)

−2.0

30*

Libe

ral a

rts

maj

or0.

290

(0.0

83)

3.49

1**

0.27

3 (0

.084

)

3.26

2***

0.27

3 (0

.084

)

3.24

7***

4.So

cial

cla

ss a

spir

atio

ns

−0.1

22 (

.080

)

−1.5

18

−0.1

18 (

0.09

2)

−1.2

81

5.In

tera

ctio

n: c

lass

soc

ializ

atio

n ×

soc

ial c

lass

asp

irat

ion

s−0

.013

(0.

147)

−0.0

89

Inte

rcep

t3.

585(

0.05

1)

70.0

91**

*

3.62

0 (0

.056

)

65.0

93**

*

3.45

0 (0

.081

)

42.6

98**

*

3.49

5 (0

.086

)

40.6

67**

*

3.49

2 (0

.092

)

37.8

69**

*

Adj

. R2

0.07

00.

073

0.12

90.

132

0.12

9

F28

.114

***

15.3

31**

*14

.355

**11

.987

***

9.96

2***

*p <

.05,

**p

< .0

1, *

**p

< .0

01.

b, u

nst

anda

rdiz

ed r

egre

ssio

n c

oeffi

cien

t; s

.e.,

stan

dard

err

or; t

, t-v

alu

e.



TAB

LE 7

.St

epw

ise

Reg

ress

ion

Mod

el: M

ean

of T

rust

in C

orpo

rati

ons

Scal

e

Inde

pen

den

t var

iabl

es

Mod

el 1

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 2

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 3

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 4

b (s

. e.)

t

Mod

el 5

b (s

. e.)

t

1.M

ale

resp

onde

nt

0.14

4 (0

.081

)

1.78

8

0.14

6 (0

.081

)

1.81

5

−0.0

71 (

0.09

2)

−0.0

77

−0.0

33 (

0.10

0)

−0.3

33

−0.0

14 (

0.10

0)

−0.1

44

2.C

lass

soc

ializ

atio

n−0

.067

(0.

085)

(−0.

663)

−0.0

84 (

0.08

3)

−1.0

08

−0.0

89 (

0.08

4)

−1.0

68

0.15

0 (0

.142

)

1.06

2

3.C

olle

ge s

ocia

lizat

ion

:

Man

agem

ent m

ajor

0.20

0 (0

.115

)

1.73

8

0.19

7 (0

.115

)

1.71

0

0.22

0 (0

.115

)

1.91

3

Libe

ral a

rts

maj

or−0

.294

(0.

100)

−2.9

46**

−0.2

80 (

0.10

2)

−2.7

45**

−0.2

51 (

0.10

3)

−2.4

45*

4.So

cial

cla

ss a

spir

atio

ns

0.02

7 (0

.042

)

0.65

6

0.07

1 (0

.046

)

1.52

6

5.In

tera

ctio

n: c

lass

soc

ializ

atio

n ×

soc

ial c

lass

asp

irat

ion

s −0

.361

(0.

172)

−2.0

96*

Inte

rcep

t2.

302

(0.0

61)

37.8

98**

*

2.32

0 (0

.066

)

35.0

28**

*

2.49

4 (0

.097

)

25.6

43**

*

2.43

1 (0

.136

)

17.8

44**

*

2.29

1 (0

.151

)

15.1

56**

*

Adj

. R2

0.00

60.

004

0.04

40.

043

0.05

2

F3.

196

1.81

55.

188*

**4.

230*

**4.

291*

**

N36

336

336

336

336

3

*p <

.05,

**p

< .0

1, *

**p

< .0

01.

b, u

nst

anda

rdiz

ed r

egre

ssio

n c

oeffi

cien

t; s

.e.,

stan

dard

err

or; t

, t-v

alu

e.



regression method that we used to explain variance in the mean scale scores. Comparedto regression models that explain variance in the government responsibility and the influ-ence of corporations sentiments, the models specified to explain trust in corporations arenot very successful. Only one of the indicators of college socialization, being a liberal artsstudent, is significantly related to the trust items. Liberal arts students tend to disagree ordisagree strongly with statements claiming that corporations “do the right thing” inAmerican society. While class socialization and class aspirations do not have independent,net effects on the trust items, the interaction term is significantly related to the trust incorporations sentiments. It is the confluence of what lies in their past with what therespondents believe to characterize their future social class locations that tends to affecttheir corporate trust beliefs.

The average social class sentiment scale scores are all in the directions predicted by ourargument: Undergraduate students, in a public university, appear to form social class sen-timents that reflect class socialization, measured by their parents’ relative social class loca-tion, college socialization, measured by academic programs of study, and social classaspirations, measured by anticipated social class locations. Men, management students,those with relatively advantaged parents, and students who anticipate a relatively morefavorable social class location hold the government less responsible for ameliorating theproblems of social class inequalities. Men and management students are unlikely to per-ceive that large corporations have too much influence in the United States. Liberal artsstudents, however, tend to have college socialization experiences that elicit less trust inAmerican corporations.

DISCUSSION

The discussion of social class in the United States is increasingly apparent in public set-tings. In the media, the discussion of past and planned tax cuts is often framed in terms ofrelative advantage to different income groups, or in more contentious terms of class war-fare. Recent accounting scandals at major corporations have resulted in congressionalinvestigations and numerous media stories about corporate executives protecting finan-cial interests by lying to stockholders and employees as their corporations were “goingunder.” Media coverage of these events is often associated with accounts of the public’sloss of trust in corporations.

In this study, we examine the relevance of class concepts and class relationships forstudents at a public university. We focus on a cluster of student beliefs and attitudes, argu-ably, the habitus. We refer to class sentiments about the role of government in fosteringequality, the influence of corporations in American life, and trust in corporations. Weattempt to explain variations in class sentiments, controlling for gender, in terms of threegeneral influences located in a student’s past, present, and future. The past, class socializa-tion, is concerned with a student’s socioeconomic origins, as reflected by parental educa-tion, occupation, income, and employment security. The present, college socialization, isrepresented by a student’s academic major, which may contribute to the development ofdifferent beliefs and attitudes about government, inequalities, and corporations. The



future, class aspirations, is a student’s postgraduation expectations regarding occupation,income, and job security. Students from working-class origins may not express working-class sentiments if they major in management (or engineering). Perhaps they are rehears-ing class sentiments linked to their anticipated social class locations. Students from moreaffluent backgrounds may not express trust or confidence in corporations if they major inthe liberal arts. Perhaps their university experiences encourage perceptions about a morejust future for workers. Although college socialization appears to have explanatory powerfor understanding variation in the formation of social class sentiments in this study, werecognize that if this research was replicated at private universities and in community col-leges, different findings could emerge. Nonetheless, in this study, we find that studentsanticipate social class locations, based partly on their experiences in one of the country’smost highly ranked management programs, or in a school of liberal arts, and expresssentiments about corporations and the government that correspond to their perceivedfuture social class locations.

In academic circles over the last decade, sociologists questioned the usefulness of classanalysis in contemporary America (Clark and Lipset 1991; Grusky and Sorensen 1998;Kingston 2000; Wright 2001; Perrucci and Wysong 2003). The findings from this study,based on public university students, may help us understand the reason why past researchon class consciousness or worker consciousness has produced weak and inconsistentresults. Some young adult subjects in earlier research may have been expressing socialclass sentiments that reflected where they expected to be in the future, rather than senti-ments that reflect their current social class position. In the present research, universitystudents are not yet in a fixed class location. They are in the process of preparing for futurepositions in the new economy that may be different from those that characterize theirparents’ lives. As such, their social class sentiments may be anything but fixed; they maybe in the process of formation. If future experiences differ markedly from the promisesassociated with their college majors, students’ class sentiments might also shift in thedirection of class origins, or in the direction of a revised future. Researchers interested inthe determinants of social class sentiments or class consciousness should consider in-corporating measures of their respondents’ past, present, and future class locations intoresearch designs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the anonymous reviewers who made constructive and helpful suggestions.

NOTES

1Not all young adults preparing to enter the labor force are in colleges or universities. A known per-

centage of high school graduates and a number of persons who do not complete high school enter

the labor force each year. Arguably, persons who do not complete formal education beyond high

school, ceteris paribus, are less likely than college students to alter their social class origins and



therefore, their class sentiments. Nonetheless, the ideal study of class sentiments would examine

the problem across all socioeconomic segments of society.2Social class location does not vary considerably among public university undergraduates. None-

theless, we measure social class location with four variables and we do find some variation in the

students’ perceptions of their parent’s social class location.3The university has 10 schools: agriculture, consumer and family sciences, education, engineering,

liberal arts, management, pharmacy, nursing and health sciences, science, technology, and veter-

inary sciences. We selected four schools for this research, the two with the highest undergraduate

enrollments (engineering and liberal arts), and two that enroll students with presumably varied

social class interests (management and education).4The student enrollment is 37,871; 57.8 percent are men and 42.2 percent are women. There are

more men than women on the campus because of the engineering, science, and technology

enrollments. Because we administered the survey to education and liberal arts students, the

sample is 49.6 percent female. The sample, relative to the university enrollment, has a smaller

percentage of engineering and liberal arts students, and a larger percentage of education and

management students.5This sampling procedure may introduce a bias. Only the students who attended classes on the day

that the survey was administered participated in the study.6Executives, proprietors, or major professionals were coded “1.” Managers and other professionals

were coded “2.” Owners of small businesses or administrative personnel were coded “3.” Clerical

workers, sales workers, and technicians were coded “4.” Skilled workers were coded “5,” semi-

skilled workers and machine operators were coded “6,” and unskilled employees were coded “7.”7Students are not expected to know the amount of their parent’s incomes. Our intention was to

measure the respondent’s perception of how much income parents earned, relative to the average

family in the state.8To conduct preliminary analysis of the items, we used a principal components (with varimax rota-

tion) factor analysis technique and found that three factors, with eigenvalues of 3.0, 2.1, and 1.0

emerged. The three factors account for 56 percent of the cumulative variance in the items. The

national public opinion survey data (Social Research Institute 2001) yielded the same three fac-

tors, with eigenvalues of 3.7, 2.0, and 1.0. In the national survey of adults in the general popula-

tion, the three factors account for 61 percent of the cumulative variance in the items. Thus, we are

confident that the 11 items adequately reflect three distinctive types of social class sentiments.9Analysis of variance and post hoc Scheffe tests showed that engineering and education students

had similar social class sentiments. For the stepwise regression analysis, we created a block of

dummy variables to represent schools or college majors. We used 1/0 codes for liberal arts, man-

agement, and engineering or education students. In the regression equation, we omitted the engi-

neering or education value to avoid singularity.10We constructed additional interaction terms, that is, gender × class socialization, gender × college

major, and college major × class aspirations. None of the additional interaction terms were signif-

icant. Thus, they are not included in the regression models that we present here.11In bivariate analyses that are not shown here, class aspirations are significantly related to all three

types of class sentiments. Class socialization is significantly related to the “influence of corpora-

tions” type of sentiment only.



REFERENCES

Astin, Alexander W. 1993. What Matters in College? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, Alexander, Sarah Parrott, William S. Korn, and Linda J. Sax. 1997. The American Freshman:

Thirty Year Trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of

Education and Information Studies, University of California–Los Angeles.

Becker, Gary. 1975. Human Capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bee, Richard H. and Terry A. Beronja. 1987. “College Student Expectations: A Function of Their

Socio-Economic Background.” College Student Journal 21:125–33.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——. 1980. The Logic of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Buerkle, Karin and Alya Guseva. 2002. “What Do You Know, Who Do You Know? School as a Site

for the Production of Social Capital and Its Effects on Income Attainment in Poland and the

Czech Republic.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61:657–80.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1998. Worker Displacement, 1995 B 97. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Labor.

Clark, Terry N. and Seymour M. Lipset. 1991. “Are Classes Dying?” International Sociology 6:397–

410.

Coleman, Richard P. and Lee Rainwater, with K. A. McClelland. 1978. Social Standing in America.

New York: Basic Books.

Cummings, Scott and Del Taebel. 1978. “The Economic Socialization of Children: A Neo-Marxist

Analysis.” Social Problems 26:198–210.

Dey, Eric L. 1996. “Undergraduate Political Attitudes: An Examination of Peer, Faculty, and Social

Influences.” Research in Higher Education 37:535–53.

——. 1997. “Undergraduate Political Attitudes: Peer Influence in Changing Social Contexts.” Jour-

nal of Higher Education 68:398–413.

Grusky, David B. and Jesper B. Sorensen. 1998. “Can Class Analysis Be Salvaged?” American Journal

of Sociology 103:1187–234.

Hout, Michael 1988. “More Universalism, Less Structural Mobility: The American Occupational

Structure in the 1980s.” American Journal of Sociology 93:1358–B1400.

Hunt, Matthew O. 1996. “The Individual, Society, or Both?: A Comparison of Black, Latino, and

White Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty.” Social Forces 75:293–322.

Ishida, Hiroshi, Watter Muller, and John M. Ridge. 1995. “Class Origins, Class Destination, and

Education: A Cross-National Study of Ten Industrial Nations.” American Journal of Sociology

101:145–93.

Jackman, Mary R. and Robert W. Jackman. 1983. Class Awareness in the United States. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

King, Anthony 2000. “Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A ‘Practical’ Critique of the Habi-

tus.” Sociological Theory 18:417–33.

Kingston, Paul W. 2000. The Classless Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kingston, Paul W., Ryan Hubbard, Brent Lapp, Paul Schroeder, and Julia Wilson. 2003. “Why Edu-

cation Matters.” Sociology of Education 76:53–70.

Legget, John C. 1968. Class, Race and Labor: Working-Class Consciousness in Detroit. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt. 2001. The State of Working America. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press.



Morris, Richard T. and Raymond J. Murphy. 1966. “A Paradigm for the Study of Class Conscious-

ness.” Sociology and Social Research 50:297–313.

O’Connor, Carla 1999. “Race, Class and Gender in America: Narratives of Opportunity among Low

Income African Americans.” Sociology of Education 72:137–57.

Orum, Anthony M. and Roberta S. Cohen. 1973. “The Development of Political Orientations

among Black and White Children.” American Sociological Review 38:62–74.

Pascarella, Ernest T. and Patrick T. Terenzini. 1991. How College Affects Students: Findings and

Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perrucci, Carolyn C., Robert Perrucci, Dena B. Targ, and Harry R. Targ. 1988. Plant Closings: Inter-

national Context and Social Costs. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Perrucci, Robert and Earl Wysong. 2003. The New Class Society: Goodbye American Dream? 2d ed.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Robison, Lindon J., A. Allen Schmid, and Marcelo E. Siles. 2001. “Is Social Capital Really Capital?”

Review of Social Economy 60:1–21.

Simmons, Roberta G. and Morris Rosenberg. 1971. “Functions of Children’s Perceptions of the

Stratification System.” American Sociological Review 36:235–49.

Smith, Herbert L. and Brian Powell. 1990. “Great Expectations: Variations in Income Expectations

among College Students.” Sociology of Education 63:194–207.

Social Research Institute. 2001. CATI Survey of General Population Attitudes and Perceptions. West

Lafayette, IN: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University.

Stendler, Cecelia. 1949. Children of Brasstown: Their Awareness of the Symbols of Social Class.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Tudor, Jeannette F. 1971. “The Development of Class Awareness in Children.” Social Forces 49:470–

6.

Turner, Jonathon H. and David E. Boyns. 2001. “Return of Grand Theory.” Pp. 353–78 in Handbook

of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Wallace, Michael and Azamat Junisbai. 2004. “Finding Class Consciousness in the New Economy.”

Pp. 385–421 in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 20, edited by K. T. Leicht.

Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Wright, Erik O. 1997. Class Counts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

——. 2001. “A Conceptual Menu for Studying the Interconnections of Class and Gender.” Pp. 28–

38 in Reconfigurations of Class and Gender, edited by J. Baxter and M. Western. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Yamaguchi, Kazuo. 1983. “The Structure of Intergenerational Occupational Mobility: Generality

and Specificity of Resources, Channels and Barriers.” American Journal of Sociology 88: 718–45.

social class sentiments in formation: influence of class socialization, college socialization, and...

Documents