Full Citation
Title: Occupational Stratification and the Multidimensional Structure of Symbolic Meaning
Citation Type: Dissertation/Thesis
Publication Year: 2014
ISBN:
ISSN:
DOI:
NSFID:
PMCID:
PMID:
Abstract: Subjective cultural meanings were once central to occupational stratification research. However, attempts to operationalize cultural meanings associated with occupations have been widely criticized, leading contemporary stratification scholars to largely abandon subjective measures in favor of objective characteristics. This leaves a gap in our understanding of how inequality is generated and maintained because Weber ([1958]) theorized that status, a form of social symbolic power based on cultural beliefs, represents one of the fundamental bases of inequality. Without an adequate method of operationalizing occupational symbolic meanings, the extent to which cultural beliefs influence stratified life outcomes remains largely unknown. To address this, I used affect control theory, a quantitative general theory of social action, and its measurement model, the semantic differential scale, to examine three issues regarding the relationship between cultural beliefs and stratified outcomes. Symbolic meaning was quantified into EPA ratings that measure three universal, affective dimensions: evaluation (good versus bad), potency (powerful versus weak), and activity (lively versus quiescent). Despite extensive support within structural social psychology, this approach has not been widely used in the field of stratification. In addition to providing a quantitative framework, because symbolic meanings are comprised of multiple dimensions, affect control theorys multidimensional construction v allows for novel approaches not possible using unidimensional measures. The three chapters that follow use affect control theory and ratings of occupational meanings from a newly collected dictionary of affective meaning to address the occupational gender wage gap, the effect of occupational status on life chance outcomes, and the development and testing of a new measure of occupational status. The first chapter examines one of the most fundamental questions in gender stratification research: why do occupations that employ more women pay less on average than occupations that employ more men? Explanations of this phenomenon remain divided, with devaluation scholars arguing that gender norms play a central role in socializing women into lower-paying occupations, while human capital scholars counter that investments in education and training, not cultural beliefs, account for pay differentials. I argue that a multidimensional model is required to explain how cultural beliefs can simultaneously socialize women into lower-paying occupations while having no direct effect on income. I found that feminine meanings are concurrently high in evaluation but low in potency, with only the power dimension directly affecting wages. This conflation of evaluation and potency allows wage setting to be based on competence, prerequisites, and skills, while cultural gender norms contribute indirectly to the gender wage gap by socializing women to enter occupations with less power and lower skill requirements, particularly skills involving complex problem solving. The second chapter explores the relationship between occupational status and a broad set of stratified life outcomes. Weber defined status as cultural beliefs based on positive or negative estimations of respect, worthiness, and value to society, but the predominant measure of status, occupational prestige scores, has been criticized for reflecting objective characteristics rather than subjective cultural beliefs. I argue that the evaluation dimension of EPA profiles is a theoretically sound operationalization of Webers definition. I then explored how ratings of evaluation predict, net of sociodemographic controls, twenty-five life-chance outcomes grouped into traditional work- and income-related life-chance measures, cultural consumption, institutional participation, and political and social attitudes. Results indicate that status, operationalized by evaluation, is significantly predictive of work- and income-related measures, institutional participation, and political and social attitudes. Contrary to other measures of status that primarily posit an association between status and lifestyle, I find little to no significant associations with any of the lifestyle measures. I argue that this difference is due to the fact that other measures are based on the potency dimension that reflects objective class differences, whereas a measure that more closely reflects status based on cultural beliefs produces a different set of relationships. Given the widespread criticism that prestige scores do not adequately operationalize occupational status beliefs, in the third chapter I developed and tested a new measure of occupational status. Based on theoretical assertions that status is constructed and diffused through deference behavior, I used affect control theory to model the likelihood that one occupation would defer to another. The predicted affective dissonance, or deflection, created when one occupational actor performs the action defers to provides an indicator of the status associated with an occupation. A status deflection score is computed by using affect control theory to predict the mean deflection created for a matrix of all possible combinations of occupations. Higher deflection scores indicate greater status, and those occupations would be less likely to defer relative to other occupations. Because status is based on widely held cultural beliefs, data from Harris Poll surveys were used to test for construct validity. The results show that deflection is more predictive of status rankings from poll data than occupational prestige scores. Criterion validity was tested using five theoretically relevant workplace outcomes: subjective attachment, job satisfaction, general happiness, the importance of meaningful work, and respect. The results found deflection scores to be significantly associated with all five measures net of controls.
User Submitted?: No
Authors: Freeland, Robert E.
Institution: Duke University
Department:
Advisor:
Degree:
Publisher Location: Durham, NC
Pages:
Data Collections: IPUMS USA
Topics: Labor Force and Occupational Structure
Countries: