-
Title
-
Class, Cognition, and Face‐to‐Face Interaction
-
Author
-
Rivera, Lauren A.
-
Research Area
-
Class, Status and Power
-
Topic
-
Social Stratification
-
Abstract
-
Social class—one's relative socioeconomic rank in society—plays a vital role in shaping individuals' future educational and occupational attainment, job satisfaction, and overall mental and physical well‐being. Although sociologists have studied macrolevel aspects of class formation and reproduction for over a century, how class distinctions are produced and reproduced on the ground in everyday social interactions has received far less empirical attention. Like other forms of stratification, class inequalities are driven not only by differential access to material resources but also how we fundamentally perceive ourselves, others, and appropriate behavior. Yet, the social sciences have yet to develop a clear and convincing theory of the microdynamics of social class. In this essay, I integrate contemporary research across disciplines to illuminate how social perception and interaction shape and are shaped by social class. I review classical and cutting‐edge research on the microdimensions of social class, discuss outstanding issues, and highlight promising directions for future research.
-
Identifier
-
etrds0043
-
extracted text
-
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face
Interaction
LAUREN A. RIVERA
Abstract
Social class—one’s relative socioeconomic rank in society—plays a vital role
in shaping individuals’ future educational and occupational attainment, job
satisfaction, and overall mental and physical well-being. Although sociologists
have studied macrolevel aspects of class formation and reproduction for over a
century, how class distinctions are produced and reproduced on the ground in
everyday social interactions has received far less empirical attention. Like other
forms of stratification, class inequalities are driven not only by differential access
to material resources but also how we fundamentally perceive ourselves, others,
and appropriate behavior. Yet, the social sciences have yet to develop a clear and
convincing theory of the microdynamics of social class. In this essay, I integrate
contemporary research across disciplines to illuminate how social perception and
interaction shape and are shaped by social class. I review classical and cutting-edge
research on the microdimensions of social class, discuss outstanding issues, and
highlight promising directions for future research.
Social class—one’s relative socioeconomic rank in society—plays a vital role
in shaping social reality. Parental economic and educational backgrounds
exert profound effects on individuals’ future educational and occupational
attainment, job satisfaction, and overall mental and physical well-being
(Stephens, Markus, & Fryberg, 2012). Despite national narratives of a classless society, social origins play an increasingly important role in determining
future life-chances in America. Economic inequality in the United States
is now at its highest since the Gilded Age, and rates of intergenerational
mobility are now lower than in many other Western industrialized nations
(Björklund and Jäntti, 1997; Couch & Dunn, 1997; Saez, 2008).
Although sociologists have studied macrolevel aspects of class formation
and reproduction for over a century, how class distinctions are produced and
reproduced on the ground in everyday social interactions has received far
less empirical attention (DiMaggio, 2012). As with other forms of inequalities, class inequalities are driven not only by differential access to resources,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
such as paychecks and prep schools, but also how we fundamentally perceive ourselves, others, and appropriate behavior in particular social settings
(Ridgeway & Fisk, 2012). Yet, despite a robust literature analyzing how interpersonal dynamics contribute to sex and race inequalities (Ridgeway, 2006),
the social sciences have yet to develop a clear and convincing theory of the
microdynamics of social class.
This omission can partly be attributed to traditional intellectual boundaries between academic disciplines. Class historically has been the purview
of sociologists, who typically privilege macrolevel and historical explanations of social phenomena, leaving the study of cognition and interpersonal
dynamics to psychologists (Lizardo, 2006). Similarly, while there are entire
sub-disciplines within psychology devoted to analyzing cognition and interpersonal interactions, social class has historically been seen as a variable that
is too structural for psychological inquiry. Consequently, cognition and interpersonal interaction were often bracketed as too “micro” for sociologists,
while class was tabled as too “macro” for psychologists. However, the cultural turns in both sociology and psychology—which sparked interest in how
attitudes, norms, values, and modes of seeing and doing in the world influence social outcomes—as well as the recent financial crisis have inspired
interest in unpacking the interpersonal dimensions of social class (Markus
& Fiske, 2012).
In this essay, I integrate classical and cutting-edge research across disciplines to illuminate how social perception and interaction both shape and are
shaped by social class. My goal is not to provide a new or exhaustive theory
of the microdimensions of social class but rather to bridge previously disconnected literatures on social class, highlight ongoing issues in the study of
social class, and outline promising directions for future research. Rather than
perpetuating disciplinary silos, I organize the essay by concept rather than
by field of study.
CLASSIFYING CLASS
Before proceeding, it is important to note that class is a notoriously tricky
concept to study empirically, particularly in the United States. Even today,
despite empirical evidence to the contrary, national narratives assert that
economic and social positions are achieved, and success or failure is largely
attributable to individual effort and character rather than social origin.
In addition to a reluctance to acknowledge class-based differences in the
United States, class itself is a messy analytical construct. While scholars
typically agree that social class has something to do with one’s relative
socioeconomic rank within a society and it influences the life chances of
oneself and one’s children, there is ongoing debate as to how we should
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
3
measure class (Goldthorpe & Chan, 2007; Grusky & Weeden, 2001; Wright,
2000). Is class income? Education? Occupation? Wealth? A combination
thereof? Are two classmates that graduated from the same college together,
but one earns $35,000 per year and the other $350,000 in the same class? Is a
professor who holds a PhD in Comparative Literature and a plumber who
did not finish high school, both of whom earn $45,000 per year members of
the same class? Does subjective or objective class rank matter more? Should
we measure class by social origin or destination?
When trying to pinpoint what constitutes to the core of social class, turning
to public opinion surveys gains researchers little ground. Americans have
a notoriously limited vocabulary for discussing social class. Their categorizations of their own social class are often inaccurate, and Americans often
see themselves and the boundaries between social groups more in terms of
occupational and moral terms (e.g., “hardworking”) rather than social class
(Lamont, 1992).
Still, even if we lack a definitive measure of it, whether measured by money,
morals, or college matriculation, class still exerts a profound effect on individuals’ life chances and is worthy of study. As DiMaggio (2012, p. 19) summarizes. “That the language of class does not come easily to Americans, nor
do they appear to have stable understandings of their class positions, does
not mean that we cannot study the effects of socioeconomic status on interaction.” Many core subjects of social scientific inquiry, such as inequality,
human capital, and cognition are multidimensional constructs that likewise
are difficult to capture with a single measure. Rather than getting stuck on
debates about which single, national-level variable best quantifies class, I
argue that studying class from the bottom up—understanding how socioeconomic rank (in all its sundry forms) shapes how we experience the world in
everyday life—can provide important insights into how and why particular
dimensions of socioeconomic privilege and underprivilege influence future
economic and social positions.
COGNITIVE STYLES
Class exerts important effects on individuals’ cognitive styles—how they
process information and perceive the world.1 Scholars have identified three
key differences in the cognitive styles of different social strata: preferences
for abstraction versus concreteness; holistic versus particularistic thinking;
and trust in authority versus the self. Although there are national differences in cognitive styles (Lamont, 1992), there is burgeoning evidence to
1. Cognition involves conscious and unconscious processes; social class affects both (Grossmann &
Varnum, 2011).
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
suggest that such class-based differences are not unique to the United States
(Grossmann & Varnum, 2011).
First, the cognitive styles of different social strata can be distinguished
by preferences for abstraction versus concreteness. French sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu (1984) suggested that individuals born into different
economic strata learn class-consistent norms, values, modes of interpretation and experience—a cognitive structure he collectively refers to as the
habitus—through early childhood experiences in the home and at school.
In many ways, the habitus serves as a class-tinged pair of spectacles; one
attends to different features of the environment and sees some objects and
pursuits as more or less desirable (or possible) depending on the specific
lenses put in the frame. The level of material and social resources readily
available in children’s home and school environments influence the content
of each class’s habitus; therefore, Bourdieu argues, the cognitive styles of
different social classes can be categorized according to their distance from
necessity. Concerned primarily with everyday survival needs, members of
lower classes tend to prefer objects, opportunities, and experiences that
have practical and immediate use value. By contrast, freed from the material
constraints of mere subsistence, members of the higher classes gravitate
towards goods and practices that are more ephemeral, abstract, and complex
in nature and value form over function. Empirical research has confirmed
such class-based differences in cognitive styles, ranging from what types of
music and entertainment we gravitate toward, to how we unconsciously
process visual and verbal stimuli (Grossmann & Varnum, 2011; Kane, 2003).
Second, recent research has shown that class-based cognitive styles differ
in their emphasis on particularistic versus holistic thinking. According
to such perspectives, growing up in a resource-rich environment with
many choices at one’s disposal fosters an inwardly oriented cognitive
style among the middle-class characterized by individualism—a vision
of the self as autonomous and in control of its own fate. Middle-class
youth come to perceive the external environment as something they can
manipulate, influence, and change rather than something that acts upon
them. By contrast, working-class individuals are more resource-constrained
and thus more dependent on the external environment to meet their
physical and social needs. Consequently, with fewer opportunities to
exert choice and influence, they develop an outwardly focused cognitive style characterized by interdependence—a more holistic vision of the
self that is dependent on the external environment and linked to structural opportunities and the fate of others (Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus,
2011).
Finally, members of different social classes place more or less emphasis on
authority versus self-reliance. In line with a more interdependent cognitive
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
5
style, members of the working class tend to place more trust in authority and
prize behaviors that emphasize obedience and conformity (Bernstein, 1971).
Conversely, consistent with an independent cognitive style, middle-class
individuals tend to privilege freedom, self-expression, distinctiveness, and
self-reliance (Lareau, 2003; Stephens, Markus, & Townsend, 2007).
Although seemingly benign, such differences in cognitive styles play
important roles in shaping individuals’ ultimate social and economic trajectories. As Bourdieu (1984) noted, shared worldviews and preferences within
each class facilitate feelings of class identity and solidarity, influencing who
we do and do not enjoy interacting with. Indeed, sharing a worldview is an
important predictor of whether or not two people will develop a trusting
relationship and with what degree of intimacy (Vaisey & Lizardo, 2010).
In addition, shared cognitive styles foster common goals and aspirations
among members, steering channel individuals into class-consistent educational and occupational trajectories (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; McLeod,
1987; Willis, 1977). One way in which they do so is through shaping individuals’ theories of success and failure. Experimental research shows that
middle-class individuals tend to explain events in terms of personal and
dispositional terms; specifically, that people’s behaviors and situations are
a result of their individual characteristics, effort, and skills. Working-class
individuals, by contrast, are more likely explain events in terms of external
factors, such as available opportunities, chance, and luck (Stephens et al.,
2011). These theories of success influence how individuals perceive the
economic and educational opportunities available to them; the degree
to which they believe they have control over their futures; how they go
about achieving desired educational and career goals; and which types of
educational and occupational environments they find to be comfortable
versus alienating.
Compounding such self-selection, key gatekeeping institutions, such as
the educational system, are designed from the perspective of the cognitive styles of the privileged classes, which may be reflected not only in
official academic curricula and school values but also factors as subtle
and seemingly minor as classroom design (Bernstein, 1971). Consequently,
students from working-class backgrounds, who are less accustomed to
norms of abstraction, individualism, and self-reliance, may find school
environments prizing these qualities to be foreign, even jarring; teachers
may interpret such dissonance as an indicator of lower academic abilities, social skills, or work ethic, potentially resulting in lower grades or
exclusion from prestigious educational tracks (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu
& Passeron, 1977). Such effects persist even at the university level. Nicole
Stephens and her collaborators argue that college—portrayed at the great
equalizer in American society—is organized around middle-class values of
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
individualism, such as independent learning, self-expression, uniqueness,
and leadership, which are at odds with working-class values of interdependence, collaboration, helping others, and community (Stephens, Fryberg,
Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012) In a series of studies, they found
that this mismatch resulted in higher stress levels among working-class
college students, greater feelings of isolation and other negative emotions,
and significantly lower grades (Stephens, Townsend, & Markus, 2012).
Highlighting the importance of matches in cognitive styles between students and educational environments for future academic success, when
they conducted a field intervention in which college freshmen orientation
materials presented college as an interdependent rather than independent
endeavor, working-class students’ negative emotions significantly decreased
and class-based academic achievement gaps disappeared (Stephens, Fryberg
et al., 2012).
Moreover, class-based cognitive styles not only influence how we perceive ourselves, others, and the environments we inhabit but also serve as
“scripts” (Goffman, 1981) that delineate appropriate behavior within the
gatekeeping institutions that sort individuals into various educational and
occupational tracks that offer different levels of economic and social rewards.
In her study of class-based parenting practices, Lareau (2003) found that,
consistent with externally orientated cognitive styles, working-class parents
adopted a child-rearing strategy she terms natural growth, a belief that
children thrive when they are left to develop on their own and in the hands
of trusted school authorities. By contrast, middle-class parents adopted a
strategy of concerted cultivation, the view that children are projects that need
to be carefully nourished and attended to in order to succeed. Informed by
these parenting scripts, middle-class parents were more likely to advocate
for their children in schools, be actively involved in the classroom, assist
children with homework, provide additional educational enrichment
activities at home, and enroll their children in structured out-of-school
activities. Such actions helped facilitate student success in the classroom and
foster more positive impressions of students by teachers. In addition, the
norm of enrolling children in structured leisure activities at young ages not
only equips middle-class children with increased opportunities to develop
social and interactional skills (including with other adults, skills that Lareau
suggests will later be valuable in the workplace) but also provides them with
important extracurricular credentials that serve as vital prerequisites for elite
college admissions (Stevens, 2007) and access to the nation’s highest-paying,
entry-level jobs (Rivera, 2011).
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
7
INTERACTIONAL STYLES
In addition to influencing how we perceive the world, class also shapes
interactional styles in face-to-face settings. Researchers have found distinct
patterns of class-based nonverbal communication. In line with an inwardly
focused cognitive style, middle-class individuals tend to be less interpersonally engaged during face-to-face encounters. In a series of experiments
involving interactions between two strangers, Kraus & Keltner (2009)
found that middle-class individuals were less likely to make eye contact,
demonstrate listening cues when the other person was speaking, and were
more likely to display distraction behaviors, such as doodling while the
other person was talking. Conversely, working-class individuals were more
interpersonally engaged and displayed more active listening cues and
increased attention to their interaction partners. Moreover, these nonverbal
patterns seem to signal a person’s social class position to others. The authors
found that students who watched silent clips of these pairs interacting could
correctly identify each individual’s class position with surprising accuracy,
partially based on these nonverbal patterns. Because they are more attuned
to the nonverbal and verbal cues of others, working-class individuals tend
to be more attentive to the emotions of others and are better able to identify
them accurately. In addition, they are more likely to help and share resources
with others, leading researchers to suggest they are more pro-social and
altruistic in interpersonal settings than middle-class individuals (Kraus,
Côté, & Keltner, 2010). Granted it is important to emphasize that such results
were found in experimental contexts where individuals are interacting
with strangers for relatively low-stakes rewards. In higher-stakes settings,
middle-class disengagement could be attenuated. For example, although
there are upper-class biases in professional hiring (Rivera, 2012), one cannot
imagine that a job candidate checking his/her cell phone during a law firm
job interview would warrant high marks; to the contrary, eye contact, active
listening cues, and forward-leaning posture are associated with higher
interview scores and greater likelihood of hire (Rivera, 2015; Staw, Sutton, &
Pelled, 1994).
In addition to the gestures we use, class is also embedded in verbal
cues. Similar to Bourdieu’s notion of distance from necessity and preferences for abstractions versus concreteness, Bernstein (1971) suggested that
working-class individuals were more likely to demonstrate what he termed
a restrictive linguistic style, characterized by simpler words and grammar
and practical rather than theoretical content. In addition, the presence or
absence of a regional accent can signal social class. Just as the difference
between Cockney and Posh in England, whether one says “wahtah” or
“wahterr” can mark whether one grew up in South Boston or Beacon Hill.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
In both sound and style, language serves as an important status marker that
individuals use to evaluate the social, intellectual, and moral worth of others
(Riches & Foddy, 1989). For example, teachers and employers may privilege
the language of the more privileged classes, interpreting these linguistic
styles as evidence of heightened intellectual and social abilities, helping
to channel higher-class individuals into more prestigious educational and
occupational paths (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
INTERACTIONAL CONTENT
Such class-based cognitive and interactional styles work together with differences in interactional content to affect interpersonal attraction and evaluation
in face-to-face encounters.
Whether it’s the “name game,” where people try to identify mutual
acquaintances, asking someone where they grew up or went to college or
what types of sports or music they like, seeking out commonalities in knowledge, experience, and interests is typically the first thing two people do upon
meeting (DiMaggio, 1987; Erickson, 1996; Rivera, 2012). Discovering these
types of underlying similarities binds individuals together, facilitates trust
and comfort, and makes us like the other person more (Byrne, 1971; Collins,
2004). Linking conversational content back to cognitive orientations, cultural knowledge and personal experiences are colored by both class-based
preferences and material barriers to entry. Returning to Bourdieu’s concept
of distance from necessity, members of the privileged classes tend to prefer
activities and topics that are abstract in nature, have aesthetic or intellectual
value, are not directly useful, and require large investments of temporal and
monetary resources; members of less-privileged classes prefer activities that
have immediate emotional or practical value and require lower material
barriers to entry (Bourdieu, 1984). Indeed, whether we prefer opera or soap
operas, bowling or badminton, Nascar or Nabakov, our tastes and interests
bear the imprint of social class (Kane, 2003). Given that discovering common
interests and experiences in conversation is a critical basis of interpersonal
attraction and trust, we are more likely to experience feelings of comfort,
ease, and “chemistry” with people who come from similar social class
backgrounds (Bourdieu, 1984; DiMaggio, 1987). Such processes contribute
to a segmentation and stratification of social networks—and the social and
material resources to which our ties connect us—by social class (Wimmer &
Lewis, 2010).
However, more than just sources of liking, societal gatekeepers use the presence or absence of commonalities associated with social class to evaluate
the worth of others and distribute valued rewards. In a study of interviews
between college counselors and community college students, Erickson and
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
9
Schultz (1981) found that establishing similarity was critical for whether a
counselor believed a student had potential for future success and delivered a
positive recommendation. Comembership could occur on various lines, but
similarities in experience and culture were most crucial. In a study of hiring practices in elite corporations, Rivera (2012) found that job applicants
who displayed class-based commonalities with their interviewers were more
likely to receive positive hiring recommendations. Yet, because not all societal gatekeepers come from higher-class backgrounds, having a wide cultural repertoire from which to draw to establish commonalities with anyone
one depends on for access to valued resources can facilitate educational and
occupational success (Erickson, 1996). Perpetuating existing class inequalities, members of higher classes are most likely to exhibit such cultural breadth
that is useful for advancement (Peterson & Simkus, 1992).
EMBODYING CLASS
Finally, class is made salient in social interaction through the body. Whether
the weathered hands of the manual laborer, the straightened and whitened
teeth of the middle classes, or the smooth foreheads and svelte yoga arms
of upper-class women, experiences of privilege and underprivilege are
inscribed in our skin and muscles (Bourdieu, 1984). For example, individuals who live in low-income neighborhoods have less access to healthy,
nonprocessed food; partially for this reason, obesity is significantly more
common among the lower classes (De Schutter, 2011). Consequently, we can
judge someone’s social class with a surprising degree of accuracy just by
sight (Kraus & Keltner, 2009).
Class also manifests in what we choose to put on our bodies. Whether it’s
the subtle stitching on the back pocket of an up-and-coming designer’s jeans
signaling a three-digit price tag to those in-the-know, the frayed edges of a
faded dress shirt signaling age and use, or a Yale Lacrosse fleece, dress is an
important marker of social class. Dress, however, is perhaps the least reliable
class marker because it is easiest to mimic. Particularly with the spread of the
mass media and internet, it’s no longer necessary to be physically present to
see what’s on the runways in Paris or Milan; one can see the latest trends days
(or even hours) later and purchase imitations for steep discounts via the internet. Perhaps for this reason, more durable and everyday items such as shoes,
watches, and spectacles tend to be seen as more reliable markers of social
class (Rivera, 2010). Moreover, what constitutes upper- versus middle- versus working-class fashion varies by time and place. Goods that were at one
time markers of privilege, such as the classic Burberry tartan scarf in England,
can quickly become a badge of working-class status (Bothwell, 2005).
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Still, some patterns emerge. Individuals from middle- and upper-class
backgrounds tend to prefer products that emphasize their individuality and
make them stand out from the pack, whereas working-class individuals tend
to prefer products that make them fit in with others (Stephens et al., 2007). In
addition, at least among the upper classes, there is a tendency to prioritize
form (e.g., designer, material, history, and mission of the company) over
function (Bourdieu, 1984). The intersection between dress and other visible
markers of class on interpersonal attraction and evaluation represents a
fruitful avenue for future research.
CONCLUSION
In the preceding pages, I reviewed classical and contemporary scholarship
on how social class shapes perception and interaction. Social class influences
how we perceive the world around us and our role and power within it;
which environments feel comfortable versus alienating; how we communicate with others; with whom we will and will not develop positive and
enduring relationships; how we feel, behave, and perform in society’s gatekeeping institutions; and how gatekeepers evaluate our own social, intellectual, and moral worth. In the remainder of the essay, I highlight promising
directions for future research.
CLASSES WITHIN CLASSES
One of the most pressing areas for future research is providing analysis of
variations within social classes. Class does not exist in a vacuum but rather
interacts with other forms of privilege and under-privilege, such as sex and
race; each of which is associated with different patterns of seeing and doing
within the social world (Lareau, 2003; Ridgeway, 2006). As such, future
research should probe deeper into how cognitive orientations, interactional
styles, and gestures vary within the upper, middle, and working classes and
how social class-based cognitive and interactional styles combine with other
status markers to magnify or reduce life chances.
In addition to such demographic distinctions, there are important ideological, cultural, and political divides within classes. Specific interactional styles
may be valued differently in particular subgroups within a given social class.
For example, a Wall Street banker and a professor, considered by many to be
part of the upper-middle class, may have distinctive ways of speaking, dressing, and doing that influence how they are evaluated in various gatekeeping
scenarios. Scholars should study variations in cognitive and interactive styles
among occupations, geographic regions, and relative economic and cultural
rank within a particular social class.
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
11
Moreover, there is a pressing need to analyze the upper class. Economic
inequality in recent decades has increasingly been driven by gains at the
top, making studying economic elites a critical intellectual and social task.
However, academics who study social class have been hesitant to identify
any class as “upper.” For example, the convention in psychology is to consider all individuals whose parents have 4-year college degrees to be “middle
class” (Stephens et al., 2007). Clearly, there are meaningful social and economic differences within this broad and heterogeneous group. Even in sociology, where the study of social class is most developed, the term upper-middle
class is a catch-all for individuals who are more privileged than the average,
college-educated, white-collar worker, such as managers, professionals, and
academics. However, is a physician or lawyer who has received the highest
degree possible and is in the top 2% of incomes nationally really middle or
upper-middle class? With the Occupy Wall Street movement, the top 1% or
even the top 0.1% of income earners have entered the national vocabulary
as the upper class. Perhaps this is because such individuals are safely distant
enough (particularly from those studying class) to be classified as privileged.
However, it is important to not to conflate the super-rich with the upper class.
The upper class, like other strata of the class hierarchy, likely has multiple
levels. Reserving the study of the upper class to the Warren Buffets and Paris
Hiltons of the world obscures much of how social origin serves as a basis of
domination and subordination in contemporary American society.
SIGNATURES OF UPWARD AND DOWNWARD CLASS MOBILITY
As noted earlier, there is ongoing debate as to which measures of class are
more powerful and stable markers of socioeconomic position. However,
scholars have noted that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between
social origin and destination, or with cultural resources and class position
(Kingston, 2001). A promising direction for future research is to analyze
individuals who have experienced significant upward or downward class
mobility within their lifetimes. Given that outsiders often have unique
insights into the norms, manners, and behaviors of a group that are taken
for granted and unnoticed by insiders (Simmel, 1908), studying such individuals could illuminate additional cognitive, interactional, and bodily class
distinctions that affect social attraction, evaluation, and stratification. Such
research could also shed light on the important but understudied question
of whether and how class-based cognitive and interactional styles can be
learned later in life (Aschaffenburg & Mass, 1997). Certain imprints of class
may be more malleable than others. For example, it likely is easier to change
patterns of eye contact and speech than one’s unconscious style of cognitive
processing.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
To conclude, class fundamentally shapes our life experiences and life
chances. By understanding how social class distinctions are perceived and
enacted on the ground in everyday social interactions, we can develop
greater knowledge of how and why social origins affect social destinations.
REFERENCES
Aschaffenburg, K., & Mass, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics
of social reproduction. American Sociological Review, 62, 573–587.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control. London, England: Routledge.
Björklund, A., & Jäntti, M. (1997). Intergenerational income mobility in Sweden compared to the United States. American Economic Review, 87, 1009–1018.
Bothwell, C. (2005). Burberry versus the Chavs. BBC News. Retrieved from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4381140.stm
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge,
ON: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London, England: Sage Publication.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Couch, K., & Dunn, T. (1997). Intergenerational correlations in labor market status:
A comparison of the United States and Germany. Journal of Human Resources, 32,
210–232.
De Schutter, O. (2011). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right
to food. Human Rights Council Nineteenth Session of the United Nations.
Retrieved from http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/
20120306_nutrition_en.pdf
DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52, 440–455.
DiMaggio, P. (2012). Sociological perspectives on the face-to-face enactment of class
distinction. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class (pp. 15–38). New York,
NY: Russell Sage.
Erickson, B. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology, 102,
217–251.
Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1981). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goldthorpe, J., & Chan, T. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction and
its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72, 512–532.
Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 81–89.
Grusky, D., & Weeden, K. (2001). Decomposition without death: A research agenda
for the new class analysis. Acta Sociologica, 44, 203–218.
Kane, D. (2003). Distinction worldwide? Bourdieu’s theory of taste in international
context. Poetics, 31, 403–421.
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
13
Kingston, P. (2001). The classless society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kraus, M., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic
accuracy. Psychological Science, 11, 1716–1723.
Kraus, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing
approach. Psychological Science, 20, 99–106.
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review, 71, 778–807.
Markus, H., & Fiske, S. (2012). Introduction: A wide-angle lens on the psychology of
social class. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class (pp. 1–12). New York,
NY: Russell Sage.
McLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it: Leveled aspirations in a low-income neighborhood.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Peterson, R., & Simkus, A. (1992). How musical tastes mark occupation status groups.
In M. Lamont & M. Fournier (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and
the making of inequality (pp. 152–186). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Riches, P., & Foddy, M. (1989). Ethnic accent as a status cue. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 197–206.
Ridgeway, C. (2006). Gender as an organizing force in social relations: Implications
for the future of inequality. In F. D. Blau, M. B. Brinton & D. B. Grusky (Eds.), The
declining significance of gender? (pp. 265–287). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Ridgeway, C., & Fisk, S. (2012). Class rules, status dynamics, and gateway interactions. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: Social psychology of social
class (pp. 131–151). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Rivera, L. (2010). Status distinctions in interaction: Social selection and exclusion at
an elite nightclub. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 229–255.
Rivera, L. (2011). Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational credentials. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29, 71–90.
Rivera, L. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service
firms. American Sociological Review, 77, 999–1022.
Rivera, L. (2015). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton, NY: Princeton
University Press.
Saez, E. (2008). Striking it richer: The evolution of top incomes in the United States.
Pathways Magazine 6–7. Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality.
Simmel, G. [1950] (1908). The stranger. In K. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel
(pp. 402–408). New York, NY: Free Press.
Staw, B., Sutton, R., & Pelled, L. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable
outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–71.
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., & Markus, H. (2011). When choice does not equal freedom:
A sociocultural analysis of agency in working-class contexts. Social and Personality
Psychology Science, 2, 33–41.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., Markus, H., Johnson, C., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen
disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines
the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197.
Stephens, N., Markus, N., & Fryberg, S. (2012). Social class disparities in health and
education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior.
Psychological Review, 119, 723–744.
Stephens, N., Markus, H., & Townsend, S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The
case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 814–830.
Stephens, N., Townsend, S., & Markus, H. (2012). A cultural mismatch: Independent
cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative emotions
among first-generation college students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48, 1389–1393.
Stevens, M. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vaisey, S., & Lizardo, O. (2010). Can cultural worldviews influence network composition? Social Forces, 88, 1595–1618.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 83–642.
Wright, E. (2000). Foundations of class analysis: A Marxian perspective. In J. Baxter
& M. Western (Eds.), Reconfigurations of class and gender (pp. 14–27). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
LAUREN A. RIVERA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Lauren A. Rivera is an Associate Professor of Management & Organizations
and Sociology at Northwestern University. Her research, which resides at the
cusp of cultural sociology, social psychology, and social stratification, investigates how people evaluate worth and social status in real life, naturalistic
contexts and how the ways they do so relate to broader social class, gender, and racial inequalities. She received her PhD in Sociology from Harvard
University and her BA in Psychology and Sociology from Yale University.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
15
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Social Classification (Sociology), Elizabeth G. Pontikes
-
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face
Interaction
LAUREN A. RIVERA
Abstract
Social class—one’s relative socioeconomic rank in society—plays a vital role
in shaping individuals’ future educational and occupational attainment, job
satisfaction, and overall mental and physical well-being. Although sociologists
have studied macrolevel aspects of class formation and reproduction for over a
century, how class distinctions are produced and reproduced on the ground in
everyday social interactions has received far less empirical attention. Like other
forms of stratification, class inequalities are driven not only by differential access
to material resources but also how we fundamentally perceive ourselves, others,
and appropriate behavior. Yet, the social sciences have yet to develop a clear and
convincing theory of the microdynamics of social class. In this essay, I integrate
contemporary research across disciplines to illuminate how social perception and
interaction shape and are shaped by social class. I review classical and cutting-edge
research on the microdimensions of social class, discuss outstanding issues, and
highlight promising directions for future research.
Social class—one’s relative socioeconomic rank in society—plays a vital role
in shaping social reality. Parental economic and educational backgrounds
exert profound effects on individuals’ future educational and occupational
attainment, job satisfaction, and overall mental and physical well-being
(Stephens, Markus, & Fryberg, 2012). Despite national narratives of a classless society, social origins play an increasingly important role in determining
future life-chances in America. Economic inequality in the United States
is now at its highest since the Gilded Age, and rates of intergenerational
mobility are now lower than in many other Western industrialized nations
(Björklund and Jäntti, 1997; Couch & Dunn, 1997; Saez, 2008).
Although sociologists have studied macrolevel aspects of class formation
and reproduction for over a century, how class distinctions are produced and
reproduced on the ground in everyday social interactions has received far
less empirical attention (DiMaggio, 2012). As with other forms of inequalities, class inequalities are driven not only by differential access to resources,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
such as paychecks and prep schools, but also how we fundamentally perceive ourselves, others, and appropriate behavior in particular social settings
(Ridgeway & Fisk, 2012). Yet, despite a robust literature analyzing how interpersonal dynamics contribute to sex and race inequalities (Ridgeway, 2006),
the social sciences have yet to develop a clear and convincing theory of the
microdynamics of social class.
This omission can partly be attributed to traditional intellectual boundaries between academic disciplines. Class historically has been the purview
of sociologists, who typically privilege macrolevel and historical explanations of social phenomena, leaving the study of cognition and interpersonal
dynamics to psychologists (Lizardo, 2006). Similarly, while there are entire
sub-disciplines within psychology devoted to analyzing cognition and interpersonal interactions, social class has historically been seen as a variable that
is too structural for psychological inquiry. Consequently, cognition and interpersonal interaction were often bracketed as too “micro” for sociologists,
while class was tabled as too “macro” for psychologists. However, the cultural turns in both sociology and psychology—which sparked interest in how
attitudes, norms, values, and modes of seeing and doing in the world influence social outcomes—as well as the recent financial crisis have inspired
interest in unpacking the interpersonal dimensions of social class (Markus
& Fiske, 2012).
In this essay, I integrate classical and cutting-edge research across disciplines to illuminate how social perception and interaction both shape and are
shaped by social class. My goal is not to provide a new or exhaustive theory
of the microdimensions of social class but rather to bridge previously disconnected literatures on social class, highlight ongoing issues in the study of
social class, and outline promising directions for future research. Rather than
perpetuating disciplinary silos, I organize the essay by concept rather than
by field of study.
CLASSIFYING CLASS
Before proceeding, it is important to note that class is a notoriously tricky
concept to study empirically, particularly in the United States. Even today,
despite empirical evidence to the contrary, national narratives assert that
economic and social positions are achieved, and success or failure is largely
attributable to individual effort and character rather than social origin.
In addition to a reluctance to acknowledge class-based differences in the
United States, class itself is a messy analytical construct. While scholars
typically agree that social class has something to do with one’s relative
socioeconomic rank within a society and it influences the life chances of
oneself and one’s children, there is ongoing debate as to how we should
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
3
measure class (Goldthorpe & Chan, 2007; Grusky & Weeden, 2001; Wright,
2000). Is class income? Education? Occupation? Wealth? A combination
thereof? Are two classmates that graduated from the same college together,
but one earns $35,000 per year and the other $350,000 in the same class? Is a
professor who holds a PhD in Comparative Literature and a plumber who
did not finish high school, both of whom earn $45,000 per year members of
the same class? Does subjective or objective class rank matter more? Should
we measure class by social origin or destination?
When trying to pinpoint what constitutes to the core of social class, turning
to public opinion surveys gains researchers little ground. Americans have
a notoriously limited vocabulary for discussing social class. Their categorizations of their own social class are often inaccurate, and Americans often
see themselves and the boundaries between social groups more in terms of
occupational and moral terms (e.g., “hardworking”) rather than social class
(Lamont, 1992).
Still, even if we lack a definitive measure of it, whether measured by money,
morals, or college matriculation, class still exerts a profound effect on individuals’ life chances and is worthy of study. As DiMaggio (2012, p. 19) summarizes. “That the language of class does not come easily to Americans, nor
do they appear to have stable understandings of their class positions, does
not mean that we cannot study the effects of socioeconomic status on interaction.” Many core subjects of social scientific inquiry, such as inequality,
human capital, and cognition are multidimensional constructs that likewise
are difficult to capture with a single measure. Rather than getting stuck on
debates about which single, national-level variable best quantifies class, I
argue that studying class from the bottom up—understanding how socioeconomic rank (in all its sundry forms) shapes how we experience the world in
everyday life—can provide important insights into how and why particular
dimensions of socioeconomic privilege and underprivilege influence future
economic and social positions.
COGNITIVE STYLES
Class exerts important effects on individuals’ cognitive styles—how they
process information and perceive the world.1 Scholars have identified three
key differences in the cognitive styles of different social strata: preferences
for abstraction versus concreteness; holistic versus particularistic thinking;
and trust in authority versus the self. Although there are national differences in cognitive styles (Lamont, 1992), there is burgeoning evidence to
1. Cognition involves conscious and unconscious processes; social class affects both (Grossmann &
Varnum, 2011).
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
suggest that such class-based differences are not unique to the United States
(Grossmann & Varnum, 2011).
First, the cognitive styles of different social strata can be distinguished
by preferences for abstraction versus concreteness. French sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu (1984) suggested that individuals born into different
economic strata learn class-consistent norms, values, modes of interpretation and experience—a cognitive structure he collectively refers to as the
habitus—through early childhood experiences in the home and at school.
In many ways, the habitus serves as a class-tinged pair of spectacles; one
attends to different features of the environment and sees some objects and
pursuits as more or less desirable (or possible) depending on the specific
lenses put in the frame. The level of material and social resources readily
available in children’s home and school environments influence the content
of each class’s habitus; therefore, Bourdieu argues, the cognitive styles of
different social classes can be categorized according to their distance from
necessity. Concerned primarily with everyday survival needs, members of
lower classes tend to prefer objects, opportunities, and experiences that
have practical and immediate use value. By contrast, freed from the material
constraints of mere subsistence, members of the higher classes gravitate
towards goods and practices that are more ephemeral, abstract, and complex
in nature and value form over function. Empirical research has confirmed
such class-based differences in cognitive styles, ranging from what types of
music and entertainment we gravitate toward, to how we unconsciously
process visual and verbal stimuli (Grossmann & Varnum, 2011; Kane, 2003).
Second, recent research has shown that class-based cognitive styles differ
in their emphasis on particularistic versus holistic thinking. According
to such perspectives, growing up in a resource-rich environment with
many choices at one’s disposal fosters an inwardly oriented cognitive
style among the middle-class characterized by individualism—a vision
of the self as autonomous and in control of its own fate. Middle-class
youth come to perceive the external environment as something they can
manipulate, influence, and change rather than something that acts upon
them. By contrast, working-class individuals are more resource-constrained
and thus more dependent on the external environment to meet their
physical and social needs. Consequently, with fewer opportunities to
exert choice and influence, they develop an outwardly focused cognitive style characterized by interdependence—a more holistic vision of the
self that is dependent on the external environment and linked to structural opportunities and the fate of others (Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus,
2011).
Finally, members of different social classes place more or less emphasis on
authority versus self-reliance. In line with a more interdependent cognitive
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
5
style, members of the working class tend to place more trust in authority and
prize behaviors that emphasize obedience and conformity (Bernstein, 1971).
Conversely, consistent with an independent cognitive style, middle-class
individuals tend to privilege freedom, self-expression, distinctiveness, and
self-reliance (Lareau, 2003; Stephens, Markus, & Townsend, 2007).
Although seemingly benign, such differences in cognitive styles play
important roles in shaping individuals’ ultimate social and economic trajectories. As Bourdieu (1984) noted, shared worldviews and preferences within
each class facilitate feelings of class identity and solidarity, influencing who
we do and do not enjoy interacting with. Indeed, sharing a worldview is an
important predictor of whether or not two people will develop a trusting
relationship and with what degree of intimacy (Vaisey & Lizardo, 2010).
In addition, shared cognitive styles foster common goals and aspirations
among members, steering channel individuals into class-consistent educational and occupational trajectories (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; McLeod,
1987; Willis, 1977). One way in which they do so is through shaping individuals’ theories of success and failure. Experimental research shows that
middle-class individuals tend to explain events in terms of personal and
dispositional terms; specifically, that people’s behaviors and situations are
a result of their individual characteristics, effort, and skills. Working-class
individuals, by contrast, are more likely explain events in terms of external
factors, such as available opportunities, chance, and luck (Stephens et al.,
2011). These theories of success influence how individuals perceive the
economic and educational opportunities available to them; the degree
to which they believe they have control over their futures; how they go
about achieving desired educational and career goals; and which types of
educational and occupational environments they find to be comfortable
versus alienating.
Compounding such self-selection, key gatekeeping institutions, such as
the educational system, are designed from the perspective of the cognitive styles of the privileged classes, which may be reflected not only in
official academic curricula and school values but also factors as subtle
and seemingly minor as classroom design (Bernstein, 1971). Consequently,
students from working-class backgrounds, who are less accustomed to
norms of abstraction, individualism, and self-reliance, may find school
environments prizing these qualities to be foreign, even jarring; teachers
may interpret such dissonance as an indicator of lower academic abilities, social skills, or work ethic, potentially resulting in lower grades or
exclusion from prestigious educational tracks (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu
& Passeron, 1977). Such effects persist even at the university level. Nicole
Stephens and her collaborators argue that college—portrayed at the great
equalizer in American society—is organized around middle-class values of
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
individualism, such as independent learning, self-expression, uniqueness,
and leadership, which are at odds with working-class values of interdependence, collaboration, helping others, and community (Stephens, Fryberg,
Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012) In a series of studies, they found
that this mismatch resulted in higher stress levels among working-class
college students, greater feelings of isolation and other negative emotions,
and significantly lower grades (Stephens, Townsend, & Markus, 2012).
Highlighting the importance of matches in cognitive styles between students and educational environments for future academic success, when
they conducted a field intervention in which college freshmen orientation
materials presented college as an interdependent rather than independent
endeavor, working-class students’ negative emotions significantly decreased
and class-based academic achievement gaps disappeared (Stephens, Fryberg
et al., 2012).
Moreover, class-based cognitive styles not only influence how we perceive ourselves, others, and the environments we inhabit but also serve as
“scripts” (Goffman, 1981) that delineate appropriate behavior within the
gatekeeping institutions that sort individuals into various educational and
occupational tracks that offer different levels of economic and social rewards.
In her study of class-based parenting practices, Lareau (2003) found that,
consistent with externally orientated cognitive styles, working-class parents
adopted a child-rearing strategy she terms natural growth, a belief that
children thrive when they are left to develop on their own and in the hands
of trusted school authorities. By contrast, middle-class parents adopted a
strategy of concerted cultivation, the view that children are projects that need
to be carefully nourished and attended to in order to succeed. Informed by
these parenting scripts, middle-class parents were more likely to advocate
for their children in schools, be actively involved in the classroom, assist
children with homework, provide additional educational enrichment
activities at home, and enroll their children in structured out-of-school
activities. Such actions helped facilitate student success in the classroom and
foster more positive impressions of students by teachers. In addition, the
norm of enrolling children in structured leisure activities at young ages not
only equips middle-class children with increased opportunities to develop
social and interactional skills (including with other adults, skills that Lareau
suggests will later be valuable in the workplace) but also provides them with
important extracurricular credentials that serve as vital prerequisites for elite
college admissions (Stevens, 2007) and access to the nation’s highest-paying,
entry-level jobs (Rivera, 2011).
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
7
INTERACTIONAL STYLES
In addition to influencing how we perceive the world, class also shapes
interactional styles in face-to-face settings. Researchers have found distinct
patterns of class-based nonverbal communication. In line with an inwardly
focused cognitive style, middle-class individuals tend to be less interpersonally engaged during face-to-face encounters. In a series of experiments
involving interactions between two strangers, Kraus & Keltner (2009)
found that middle-class individuals were less likely to make eye contact,
demonstrate listening cues when the other person was speaking, and were
more likely to display distraction behaviors, such as doodling while the
other person was talking. Conversely, working-class individuals were more
interpersonally engaged and displayed more active listening cues and
increased attention to their interaction partners. Moreover, these nonverbal
patterns seem to signal a person’s social class position to others. The authors
found that students who watched silent clips of these pairs interacting could
correctly identify each individual’s class position with surprising accuracy,
partially based on these nonverbal patterns. Because they are more attuned
to the nonverbal and verbal cues of others, working-class individuals tend
to be more attentive to the emotions of others and are better able to identify
them accurately. In addition, they are more likely to help and share resources
with others, leading researchers to suggest they are more pro-social and
altruistic in interpersonal settings than middle-class individuals (Kraus,
Côté, & Keltner, 2010). Granted it is important to emphasize that such results
were found in experimental contexts where individuals are interacting
with strangers for relatively low-stakes rewards. In higher-stakes settings,
middle-class disengagement could be attenuated. For example, although
there are upper-class biases in professional hiring (Rivera, 2012), one cannot
imagine that a job candidate checking his/her cell phone during a law firm
job interview would warrant high marks; to the contrary, eye contact, active
listening cues, and forward-leaning posture are associated with higher
interview scores and greater likelihood of hire (Rivera, 2015; Staw, Sutton, &
Pelled, 1994).
In addition to the gestures we use, class is also embedded in verbal
cues. Similar to Bourdieu’s notion of distance from necessity and preferences for abstractions versus concreteness, Bernstein (1971) suggested that
working-class individuals were more likely to demonstrate what he termed
a restrictive linguistic style, characterized by simpler words and grammar
and practical rather than theoretical content. In addition, the presence or
absence of a regional accent can signal social class. Just as the difference
between Cockney and Posh in England, whether one says “wahtah” or
“wahterr” can mark whether one grew up in South Boston or Beacon Hill.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
In both sound and style, language serves as an important status marker that
individuals use to evaluate the social, intellectual, and moral worth of others
(Riches & Foddy, 1989). For example, teachers and employers may privilege
the language of the more privileged classes, interpreting these linguistic
styles as evidence of heightened intellectual and social abilities, helping
to channel higher-class individuals into more prestigious educational and
occupational paths (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
INTERACTIONAL CONTENT
Such class-based cognitive and interactional styles work together with differences in interactional content to affect interpersonal attraction and evaluation
in face-to-face encounters.
Whether it’s the “name game,” where people try to identify mutual
acquaintances, asking someone where they grew up or went to college or
what types of sports or music they like, seeking out commonalities in knowledge, experience, and interests is typically the first thing two people do upon
meeting (DiMaggio, 1987; Erickson, 1996; Rivera, 2012). Discovering these
types of underlying similarities binds individuals together, facilitates trust
and comfort, and makes us like the other person more (Byrne, 1971; Collins,
2004). Linking conversational content back to cognitive orientations, cultural knowledge and personal experiences are colored by both class-based
preferences and material barriers to entry. Returning to Bourdieu’s concept
of distance from necessity, members of the privileged classes tend to prefer
activities and topics that are abstract in nature, have aesthetic or intellectual
value, are not directly useful, and require large investments of temporal and
monetary resources; members of less-privileged classes prefer activities that
have immediate emotional or practical value and require lower material
barriers to entry (Bourdieu, 1984). Indeed, whether we prefer opera or soap
operas, bowling or badminton, Nascar or Nabakov, our tastes and interests
bear the imprint of social class (Kane, 2003). Given that discovering common
interests and experiences in conversation is a critical basis of interpersonal
attraction and trust, we are more likely to experience feelings of comfort,
ease, and “chemistry” with people who come from similar social class
backgrounds (Bourdieu, 1984; DiMaggio, 1987). Such processes contribute
to a segmentation and stratification of social networks—and the social and
material resources to which our ties connect us—by social class (Wimmer &
Lewis, 2010).
However, more than just sources of liking, societal gatekeepers use the presence or absence of commonalities associated with social class to evaluate
the worth of others and distribute valued rewards. In a study of interviews
between college counselors and community college students, Erickson and
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
9
Schultz (1981) found that establishing similarity was critical for whether a
counselor believed a student had potential for future success and delivered a
positive recommendation. Comembership could occur on various lines, but
similarities in experience and culture were most crucial. In a study of hiring practices in elite corporations, Rivera (2012) found that job applicants
who displayed class-based commonalities with their interviewers were more
likely to receive positive hiring recommendations. Yet, because not all societal gatekeepers come from higher-class backgrounds, having a wide cultural repertoire from which to draw to establish commonalities with anyone
one depends on for access to valued resources can facilitate educational and
occupational success (Erickson, 1996). Perpetuating existing class inequalities, members of higher classes are most likely to exhibit such cultural breadth
that is useful for advancement (Peterson & Simkus, 1992).
EMBODYING CLASS
Finally, class is made salient in social interaction through the body. Whether
the weathered hands of the manual laborer, the straightened and whitened
teeth of the middle classes, or the smooth foreheads and svelte yoga arms
of upper-class women, experiences of privilege and underprivilege are
inscribed in our skin and muscles (Bourdieu, 1984). For example, individuals who live in low-income neighborhoods have less access to healthy,
nonprocessed food; partially for this reason, obesity is significantly more
common among the lower classes (De Schutter, 2011). Consequently, we can
judge someone’s social class with a surprising degree of accuracy just by
sight (Kraus & Keltner, 2009).
Class also manifests in what we choose to put on our bodies. Whether it’s
the subtle stitching on the back pocket of an up-and-coming designer’s jeans
signaling a three-digit price tag to those in-the-know, the frayed edges of a
faded dress shirt signaling age and use, or a Yale Lacrosse fleece, dress is an
important marker of social class. Dress, however, is perhaps the least reliable
class marker because it is easiest to mimic. Particularly with the spread of the
mass media and internet, it’s no longer necessary to be physically present to
see what’s on the runways in Paris or Milan; one can see the latest trends days
(or even hours) later and purchase imitations for steep discounts via the internet. Perhaps for this reason, more durable and everyday items such as shoes,
watches, and spectacles tend to be seen as more reliable markers of social
class (Rivera, 2010). Moreover, what constitutes upper- versus middle- versus working-class fashion varies by time and place. Goods that were at one
time markers of privilege, such as the classic Burberry tartan scarf in England,
can quickly become a badge of working-class status (Bothwell, 2005).
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Still, some patterns emerge. Individuals from middle- and upper-class
backgrounds tend to prefer products that emphasize their individuality and
make them stand out from the pack, whereas working-class individuals tend
to prefer products that make them fit in with others (Stephens et al., 2007). In
addition, at least among the upper classes, there is a tendency to prioritize
form (e.g., designer, material, history, and mission of the company) over
function (Bourdieu, 1984). The intersection between dress and other visible
markers of class on interpersonal attraction and evaluation represents a
fruitful avenue for future research.
CONCLUSION
In the preceding pages, I reviewed classical and contemporary scholarship
on how social class shapes perception and interaction. Social class influences
how we perceive the world around us and our role and power within it;
which environments feel comfortable versus alienating; how we communicate with others; with whom we will and will not develop positive and
enduring relationships; how we feel, behave, and perform in society’s gatekeeping institutions; and how gatekeepers evaluate our own social, intellectual, and moral worth. In the remainder of the essay, I highlight promising
directions for future research.
CLASSES WITHIN CLASSES
One of the most pressing areas for future research is providing analysis of
variations within social classes. Class does not exist in a vacuum but rather
interacts with other forms of privilege and under-privilege, such as sex and
race; each of which is associated with different patterns of seeing and doing
within the social world (Lareau, 2003; Ridgeway, 2006). As such, future
research should probe deeper into how cognitive orientations, interactional
styles, and gestures vary within the upper, middle, and working classes and
how social class-based cognitive and interactional styles combine with other
status markers to magnify or reduce life chances.
In addition to such demographic distinctions, there are important ideological, cultural, and political divides within classes. Specific interactional styles
may be valued differently in particular subgroups within a given social class.
For example, a Wall Street banker and a professor, considered by many to be
part of the upper-middle class, may have distinctive ways of speaking, dressing, and doing that influence how they are evaluated in various gatekeeping
scenarios. Scholars should study variations in cognitive and interactive styles
among occupations, geographic regions, and relative economic and cultural
rank within a particular social class.
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
11
Moreover, there is a pressing need to analyze the upper class. Economic
inequality in recent decades has increasingly been driven by gains at the
top, making studying economic elites a critical intellectual and social task.
However, academics who study social class have been hesitant to identify
any class as “upper.” For example, the convention in psychology is to consider all individuals whose parents have 4-year college degrees to be “middle
class” (Stephens et al., 2007). Clearly, there are meaningful social and economic differences within this broad and heterogeneous group. Even in sociology, where the study of social class is most developed, the term upper-middle
class is a catch-all for individuals who are more privileged than the average,
college-educated, white-collar worker, such as managers, professionals, and
academics. However, is a physician or lawyer who has received the highest
degree possible and is in the top 2% of incomes nationally really middle or
upper-middle class? With the Occupy Wall Street movement, the top 1% or
even the top 0.1% of income earners have entered the national vocabulary
as the upper class. Perhaps this is because such individuals are safely distant
enough (particularly from those studying class) to be classified as privileged.
However, it is important to not to conflate the super-rich with the upper class.
The upper class, like other strata of the class hierarchy, likely has multiple
levels. Reserving the study of the upper class to the Warren Buffets and Paris
Hiltons of the world obscures much of how social origin serves as a basis of
domination and subordination in contemporary American society.
SIGNATURES OF UPWARD AND DOWNWARD CLASS MOBILITY
As noted earlier, there is ongoing debate as to which measures of class are
more powerful and stable markers of socioeconomic position. However,
scholars have noted that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between
social origin and destination, or with cultural resources and class position
(Kingston, 2001). A promising direction for future research is to analyze
individuals who have experienced significant upward or downward class
mobility within their lifetimes. Given that outsiders often have unique
insights into the norms, manners, and behaviors of a group that are taken
for granted and unnoticed by insiders (Simmel, 1908), studying such individuals could illuminate additional cognitive, interactional, and bodily class
distinctions that affect social attraction, evaluation, and stratification. Such
research could also shed light on the important but understudied question
of whether and how class-based cognitive and interactional styles can be
learned later in life (Aschaffenburg & Mass, 1997). Certain imprints of class
may be more malleable than others. For example, it likely is easier to change
patterns of eye contact and speech than one’s unconscious style of cognitive
processing.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
To conclude, class fundamentally shapes our life experiences and life
chances. By understanding how social class distinctions are perceived and
enacted on the ground in everyday social interactions, we can develop
greater knowledge of how and why social origins affect social destinations.
REFERENCES
Aschaffenburg, K., & Mass, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics
of social reproduction. American Sociological Review, 62, 573–587.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control. London, England: Routledge.
Björklund, A., & Jäntti, M. (1997). Intergenerational income mobility in Sweden compared to the United States. American Economic Review, 87, 1009–1018.
Bothwell, C. (2005). Burberry versus the Chavs. BBC News. Retrieved from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4381140.stm
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge,
ON: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London, England: Sage Publication.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Couch, K., & Dunn, T. (1997). Intergenerational correlations in labor market status:
A comparison of the United States and Germany. Journal of Human Resources, 32,
210–232.
De Schutter, O. (2011). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right
to food. Human Rights Council Nineteenth Session of the United Nations.
Retrieved from http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/
20120306_nutrition_en.pdf
DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52, 440–455.
DiMaggio, P. (2012). Sociological perspectives on the face-to-face enactment of class
distinction. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class (pp. 15–38). New York,
NY: Russell Sage.
Erickson, B. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology, 102,
217–251.
Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1981). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goldthorpe, J., & Chan, T. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction and
its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72, 512–532.
Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 81–89.
Grusky, D., & Weeden, K. (2001). Decomposition without death: A research agenda
for the new class analysis. Acta Sociologica, 44, 203–218.
Kane, D. (2003). Distinction worldwide? Bourdieu’s theory of taste in international
context. Poetics, 31, 403–421.
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
13
Kingston, P. (2001). The classless society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kraus, M., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic
accuracy. Psychological Science, 11, 1716–1723.
Kraus, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing
approach. Psychological Science, 20, 99–106.
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review, 71, 778–807.
Markus, H., & Fiske, S. (2012). Introduction: A wide-angle lens on the psychology of
social class. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class (pp. 1–12). New York,
NY: Russell Sage.
McLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it: Leveled aspirations in a low-income neighborhood.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Peterson, R., & Simkus, A. (1992). How musical tastes mark occupation status groups.
In M. Lamont & M. Fournier (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and
the making of inequality (pp. 152–186). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Riches, P., & Foddy, M. (1989). Ethnic accent as a status cue. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 197–206.
Ridgeway, C. (2006). Gender as an organizing force in social relations: Implications
for the future of inequality. In F. D. Blau, M. B. Brinton & D. B. Grusky (Eds.), The
declining significance of gender? (pp. 265–287). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Ridgeway, C., & Fisk, S. (2012). Class rules, status dynamics, and gateway interactions. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: Social psychology of social
class (pp. 131–151). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Rivera, L. (2010). Status distinctions in interaction: Social selection and exclusion at
an elite nightclub. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 229–255.
Rivera, L. (2011). Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational credentials. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29, 71–90.
Rivera, L. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service
firms. American Sociological Review, 77, 999–1022.
Rivera, L. (2015). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton, NY: Princeton
University Press.
Saez, E. (2008). Striking it richer: The evolution of top incomes in the United States.
Pathways Magazine 6–7. Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality.
Simmel, G. [1950] (1908). The stranger. In K. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel
(pp. 402–408). New York, NY: Free Press.
Staw, B., Sutton, R., & Pelled, L. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable
outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–71.
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., & Markus, H. (2011). When choice does not equal freedom:
A sociocultural analysis of agency in working-class contexts. Social and Personality
Psychology Science, 2, 33–41.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., Markus, H., Johnson, C., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen
disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines
the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197.
Stephens, N., Markus, N., & Fryberg, S. (2012). Social class disparities in health and
education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior.
Psychological Review, 119, 723–744.
Stephens, N., Markus, H., & Townsend, S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The
case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 814–830.
Stephens, N., Townsend, S., & Markus, H. (2012). A cultural mismatch: Independent
cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative emotions
among first-generation college students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48, 1389–1393.
Stevens, M. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vaisey, S., & Lizardo, O. (2010). Can cultural worldviews influence network composition? Social Forces, 88, 1595–1618.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 83–642.
Wright, E. (2000). Foundations of class analysis: A Marxian perspective. In J. Baxter
& M. Western (Eds.), Reconfigurations of class and gender (pp. 14–27). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
LAUREN A. RIVERA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Lauren A. Rivera is an Associate Professor of Management & Organizations
and Sociology at Northwestern University. Her research, which resides at the
cusp of cultural sociology, social psychology, and social stratification, investigates how people evaluate worth and social status in real life, naturalistic
contexts and how the ways they do so relate to broader social class, gender, and racial inequalities. She received her PhD in Sociology from Harvard
University and her BA in Psychology and Sociology from Yale University.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
15
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Social Classification (Sociology), Elizabeth G. Pontikes
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face
Interaction
LAUREN A. RIVERA
Abstract
Social class—one’s relative socioeconomic rank in society—plays a vital role
in shaping individuals’ future educational and occupational attainment, job
satisfaction, and overall mental and physical well-being. Although sociologists
have studied macrolevel aspects of class formation and reproduction for over a
century, how class distinctions are produced and reproduced on the ground in
everyday social interactions has received far less empirical attention. Like other
forms of stratification, class inequalities are driven not only by differential access
to material resources but also how we fundamentally perceive ourselves, others,
and appropriate behavior. Yet, the social sciences have yet to develop a clear and
convincing theory of the microdynamics of social class. In this essay, I integrate
contemporary research across disciplines to illuminate how social perception and
interaction shape and are shaped by social class. I review classical and cutting-edge
research on the microdimensions of social class, discuss outstanding issues, and
highlight promising directions for future research.
Social class—one’s relative socioeconomic rank in society—plays a vital role
in shaping social reality. Parental economic and educational backgrounds
exert profound effects on individuals’ future educational and occupational
attainment, job satisfaction, and overall mental and physical well-being
(Stephens, Markus, & Fryberg, 2012). Despite national narratives of a classless society, social origins play an increasingly important role in determining
future life-chances in America. Economic inequality in the United States
is now at its highest since the Gilded Age, and rates of intergenerational
mobility are now lower than in many other Western industrialized nations
(Björklund and Jäntti, 1997; Couch & Dunn, 1997; Saez, 2008).
Although sociologists have studied macrolevel aspects of class formation
and reproduction for over a century, how class distinctions are produced and
reproduced on the ground in everyday social interactions has received far
less empirical attention (DiMaggio, 2012). As with other forms of inequalities, class inequalities are driven not only by differential access to resources,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
such as paychecks and prep schools, but also how we fundamentally perceive ourselves, others, and appropriate behavior in particular social settings
(Ridgeway & Fisk, 2012). Yet, despite a robust literature analyzing how interpersonal dynamics contribute to sex and race inequalities (Ridgeway, 2006),
the social sciences have yet to develop a clear and convincing theory of the
microdynamics of social class.
This omission can partly be attributed to traditional intellectual boundaries between academic disciplines. Class historically has been the purview
of sociologists, who typically privilege macrolevel and historical explanations of social phenomena, leaving the study of cognition and interpersonal
dynamics to psychologists (Lizardo, 2006). Similarly, while there are entire
sub-disciplines within psychology devoted to analyzing cognition and interpersonal interactions, social class has historically been seen as a variable that
is too structural for psychological inquiry. Consequently, cognition and interpersonal interaction were often bracketed as too “micro” for sociologists,
while class was tabled as too “macro” for psychologists. However, the cultural turns in both sociology and psychology—which sparked interest in how
attitudes, norms, values, and modes of seeing and doing in the world influence social outcomes—as well as the recent financial crisis have inspired
interest in unpacking the interpersonal dimensions of social class (Markus
& Fiske, 2012).
In this essay, I integrate classical and cutting-edge research across disciplines to illuminate how social perception and interaction both shape and are
shaped by social class. My goal is not to provide a new or exhaustive theory
of the microdimensions of social class but rather to bridge previously disconnected literatures on social class, highlight ongoing issues in the study of
social class, and outline promising directions for future research. Rather than
perpetuating disciplinary silos, I organize the essay by concept rather than
by field of study.
CLASSIFYING CLASS
Before proceeding, it is important to note that class is a notoriously tricky
concept to study empirically, particularly in the United States. Even today,
despite empirical evidence to the contrary, national narratives assert that
economic and social positions are achieved, and success or failure is largely
attributable to individual effort and character rather than social origin.
In addition to a reluctance to acknowledge class-based differences in the
United States, class itself is a messy analytical construct. While scholars
typically agree that social class has something to do with one’s relative
socioeconomic rank within a society and it influences the life chances of
oneself and one’s children, there is ongoing debate as to how we should
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
3
measure class (Goldthorpe & Chan, 2007; Grusky & Weeden, 2001; Wright,
2000). Is class income? Education? Occupation? Wealth? A combination
thereof? Are two classmates that graduated from the same college together,
but one earns $35,000 per year and the other $350,000 in the same class? Is a
professor who holds a PhD in Comparative Literature and a plumber who
did not finish high school, both of whom earn $45,000 per year members of
the same class? Does subjective or objective class rank matter more? Should
we measure class by social origin or destination?
When trying to pinpoint what constitutes to the core of social class, turning
to public opinion surveys gains researchers little ground. Americans have
a notoriously limited vocabulary for discussing social class. Their categorizations of their own social class are often inaccurate, and Americans often
see themselves and the boundaries between social groups more in terms of
occupational and moral terms (e.g., “hardworking”) rather than social class
(Lamont, 1992).
Still, even if we lack a definitive measure of it, whether measured by money,
morals, or college matriculation, class still exerts a profound effect on individuals’ life chances and is worthy of study. As DiMaggio (2012, p. 19) summarizes. “That the language of class does not come easily to Americans, nor
do they appear to have stable understandings of their class positions, does
not mean that we cannot study the effects of socioeconomic status on interaction.” Many core subjects of social scientific inquiry, such as inequality,
human capital, and cognition are multidimensional constructs that likewise
are difficult to capture with a single measure. Rather than getting stuck on
debates about which single, national-level variable best quantifies class, I
argue that studying class from the bottom up—understanding how socioeconomic rank (in all its sundry forms) shapes how we experience the world in
everyday life—can provide important insights into how and why particular
dimensions of socioeconomic privilege and underprivilege influence future
economic and social positions.
COGNITIVE STYLES
Class exerts important effects on individuals’ cognitive styles—how they
process information and perceive the world.1 Scholars have identified three
key differences in the cognitive styles of different social strata: preferences
for abstraction versus concreteness; holistic versus particularistic thinking;
and trust in authority versus the self. Although there are national differences in cognitive styles (Lamont, 1992), there is burgeoning evidence to
1. Cognition involves conscious and unconscious processes; social class affects both (Grossmann &
Varnum, 2011).
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
suggest that such class-based differences are not unique to the United States
(Grossmann & Varnum, 2011).
First, the cognitive styles of different social strata can be distinguished
by preferences for abstraction versus concreteness. French sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu (1984) suggested that individuals born into different
economic strata learn class-consistent norms, values, modes of interpretation and experience—a cognitive structure he collectively refers to as the
habitus—through early childhood experiences in the home and at school.
In many ways, the habitus serves as a class-tinged pair of spectacles; one
attends to different features of the environment and sees some objects and
pursuits as more or less desirable (or possible) depending on the specific
lenses put in the frame. The level of material and social resources readily
available in children’s home and school environments influence the content
of each class’s habitus; therefore, Bourdieu argues, the cognitive styles of
different social classes can be categorized according to their distance from
necessity. Concerned primarily with everyday survival needs, members of
lower classes tend to prefer objects, opportunities, and experiences that
have practical and immediate use value. By contrast, freed from the material
constraints of mere subsistence, members of the higher classes gravitate
towards goods and practices that are more ephemeral, abstract, and complex
in nature and value form over function. Empirical research has confirmed
such class-based differences in cognitive styles, ranging from what types of
music and entertainment we gravitate toward, to how we unconsciously
process visual and verbal stimuli (Grossmann & Varnum, 2011; Kane, 2003).
Second, recent research has shown that class-based cognitive styles differ
in their emphasis on particularistic versus holistic thinking. According
to such perspectives, growing up in a resource-rich environment with
many choices at one’s disposal fosters an inwardly oriented cognitive
style among the middle-class characterized by individualism—a vision
of the self as autonomous and in control of its own fate. Middle-class
youth come to perceive the external environment as something they can
manipulate, influence, and change rather than something that acts upon
them. By contrast, working-class individuals are more resource-constrained
and thus more dependent on the external environment to meet their
physical and social needs. Consequently, with fewer opportunities to
exert choice and influence, they develop an outwardly focused cognitive style characterized by interdependence—a more holistic vision of the
self that is dependent on the external environment and linked to structural opportunities and the fate of others (Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus,
2011).
Finally, members of different social classes place more or less emphasis on
authority versus self-reliance. In line with a more interdependent cognitive
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
5
style, members of the working class tend to place more trust in authority and
prize behaviors that emphasize obedience and conformity (Bernstein, 1971).
Conversely, consistent with an independent cognitive style, middle-class
individuals tend to privilege freedom, self-expression, distinctiveness, and
self-reliance (Lareau, 2003; Stephens, Markus, & Townsend, 2007).
Although seemingly benign, such differences in cognitive styles play
important roles in shaping individuals’ ultimate social and economic trajectories. As Bourdieu (1984) noted, shared worldviews and preferences within
each class facilitate feelings of class identity and solidarity, influencing who
we do and do not enjoy interacting with. Indeed, sharing a worldview is an
important predictor of whether or not two people will develop a trusting
relationship and with what degree of intimacy (Vaisey & Lizardo, 2010).
In addition, shared cognitive styles foster common goals and aspirations
among members, steering channel individuals into class-consistent educational and occupational trajectories (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; McLeod,
1987; Willis, 1977). One way in which they do so is through shaping individuals’ theories of success and failure. Experimental research shows that
middle-class individuals tend to explain events in terms of personal and
dispositional terms; specifically, that people’s behaviors and situations are
a result of their individual characteristics, effort, and skills. Working-class
individuals, by contrast, are more likely explain events in terms of external
factors, such as available opportunities, chance, and luck (Stephens et al.,
2011). These theories of success influence how individuals perceive the
economic and educational opportunities available to them; the degree
to which they believe they have control over their futures; how they go
about achieving desired educational and career goals; and which types of
educational and occupational environments they find to be comfortable
versus alienating.
Compounding such self-selection, key gatekeeping institutions, such as
the educational system, are designed from the perspective of the cognitive styles of the privileged classes, which may be reflected not only in
official academic curricula and school values but also factors as subtle
and seemingly minor as classroom design (Bernstein, 1971). Consequently,
students from working-class backgrounds, who are less accustomed to
norms of abstraction, individualism, and self-reliance, may find school
environments prizing these qualities to be foreign, even jarring; teachers
may interpret such dissonance as an indicator of lower academic abilities, social skills, or work ethic, potentially resulting in lower grades or
exclusion from prestigious educational tracks (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu
& Passeron, 1977). Such effects persist even at the university level. Nicole
Stephens and her collaborators argue that college—portrayed at the great
equalizer in American society—is organized around middle-class values of
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
individualism, such as independent learning, self-expression, uniqueness,
and leadership, which are at odds with working-class values of interdependence, collaboration, helping others, and community (Stephens, Fryberg,
Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012) In a series of studies, they found
that this mismatch resulted in higher stress levels among working-class
college students, greater feelings of isolation and other negative emotions,
and significantly lower grades (Stephens, Townsend, & Markus, 2012).
Highlighting the importance of matches in cognitive styles between students and educational environments for future academic success, when
they conducted a field intervention in which college freshmen orientation
materials presented college as an interdependent rather than independent
endeavor, working-class students’ negative emotions significantly decreased
and class-based academic achievement gaps disappeared (Stephens, Fryberg
et al., 2012).
Moreover, class-based cognitive styles not only influence how we perceive ourselves, others, and the environments we inhabit but also serve as
“scripts” (Goffman, 1981) that delineate appropriate behavior within the
gatekeeping institutions that sort individuals into various educational and
occupational tracks that offer different levels of economic and social rewards.
In her study of class-based parenting practices, Lareau (2003) found that,
consistent with externally orientated cognitive styles, working-class parents
adopted a child-rearing strategy she terms natural growth, a belief that
children thrive when they are left to develop on their own and in the hands
of trusted school authorities. By contrast, middle-class parents adopted a
strategy of concerted cultivation, the view that children are projects that need
to be carefully nourished and attended to in order to succeed. Informed by
these parenting scripts, middle-class parents were more likely to advocate
for their children in schools, be actively involved in the classroom, assist
children with homework, provide additional educational enrichment
activities at home, and enroll their children in structured out-of-school
activities. Such actions helped facilitate student success in the classroom and
foster more positive impressions of students by teachers. In addition, the
norm of enrolling children in structured leisure activities at young ages not
only equips middle-class children with increased opportunities to develop
social and interactional skills (including with other adults, skills that Lareau
suggests will later be valuable in the workplace) but also provides them with
important extracurricular credentials that serve as vital prerequisites for elite
college admissions (Stevens, 2007) and access to the nation’s highest-paying,
entry-level jobs (Rivera, 2011).
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
7
INTERACTIONAL STYLES
In addition to influencing how we perceive the world, class also shapes
interactional styles in face-to-face settings. Researchers have found distinct
patterns of class-based nonverbal communication. In line with an inwardly
focused cognitive style, middle-class individuals tend to be less interpersonally engaged during face-to-face encounters. In a series of experiments
involving interactions between two strangers, Kraus & Keltner (2009)
found that middle-class individuals were less likely to make eye contact,
demonstrate listening cues when the other person was speaking, and were
more likely to display distraction behaviors, such as doodling while the
other person was talking. Conversely, working-class individuals were more
interpersonally engaged and displayed more active listening cues and
increased attention to their interaction partners. Moreover, these nonverbal
patterns seem to signal a person’s social class position to others. The authors
found that students who watched silent clips of these pairs interacting could
correctly identify each individual’s class position with surprising accuracy,
partially based on these nonverbal patterns. Because they are more attuned
to the nonverbal and verbal cues of others, working-class individuals tend
to be more attentive to the emotions of others and are better able to identify
them accurately. In addition, they are more likely to help and share resources
with others, leading researchers to suggest they are more pro-social and
altruistic in interpersonal settings than middle-class individuals (Kraus,
Côté, & Keltner, 2010). Granted it is important to emphasize that such results
were found in experimental contexts where individuals are interacting
with strangers for relatively low-stakes rewards. In higher-stakes settings,
middle-class disengagement could be attenuated. For example, although
there are upper-class biases in professional hiring (Rivera, 2012), one cannot
imagine that a job candidate checking his/her cell phone during a law firm
job interview would warrant high marks; to the contrary, eye contact, active
listening cues, and forward-leaning posture are associated with higher
interview scores and greater likelihood of hire (Rivera, 2015; Staw, Sutton, &
Pelled, 1994).
In addition to the gestures we use, class is also embedded in verbal
cues. Similar to Bourdieu’s notion of distance from necessity and preferences for abstractions versus concreteness, Bernstein (1971) suggested that
working-class individuals were more likely to demonstrate what he termed
a restrictive linguistic style, characterized by simpler words and grammar
and practical rather than theoretical content. In addition, the presence or
absence of a regional accent can signal social class. Just as the difference
between Cockney and Posh in England, whether one says “wahtah” or
“wahterr” can mark whether one grew up in South Boston or Beacon Hill.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
In both sound and style, language serves as an important status marker that
individuals use to evaluate the social, intellectual, and moral worth of others
(Riches & Foddy, 1989). For example, teachers and employers may privilege
the language of the more privileged classes, interpreting these linguistic
styles as evidence of heightened intellectual and social abilities, helping
to channel higher-class individuals into more prestigious educational and
occupational paths (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
INTERACTIONAL CONTENT
Such class-based cognitive and interactional styles work together with differences in interactional content to affect interpersonal attraction and evaluation
in face-to-face encounters.
Whether it’s the “name game,” where people try to identify mutual
acquaintances, asking someone where they grew up or went to college or
what types of sports or music they like, seeking out commonalities in knowledge, experience, and interests is typically the first thing two people do upon
meeting (DiMaggio, 1987; Erickson, 1996; Rivera, 2012). Discovering these
types of underlying similarities binds individuals together, facilitates trust
and comfort, and makes us like the other person more (Byrne, 1971; Collins,
2004). Linking conversational content back to cognitive orientations, cultural knowledge and personal experiences are colored by both class-based
preferences and material barriers to entry. Returning to Bourdieu’s concept
of distance from necessity, members of the privileged classes tend to prefer
activities and topics that are abstract in nature, have aesthetic or intellectual
value, are not directly useful, and require large investments of temporal and
monetary resources; members of less-privileged classes prefer activities that
have immediate emotional or practical value and require lower material
barriers to entry (Bourdieu, 1984). Indeed, whether we prefer opera or soap
operas, bowling or badminton, Nascar or Nabakov, our tastes and interests
bear the imprint of social class (Kane, 2003). Given that discovering common
interests and experiences in conversation is a critical basis of interpersonal
attraction and trust, we are more likely to experience feelings of comfort,
ease, and “chemistry” with people who come from similar social class
backgrounds (Bourdieu, 1984; DiMaggio, 1987). Such processes contribute
to a segmentation and stratification of social networks—and the social and
material resources to which our ties connect us—by social class (Wimmer &
Lewis, 2010).
However, more than just sources of liking, societal gatekeepers use the presence or absence of commonalities associated with social class to evaluate
the worth of others and distribute valued rewards. In a study of interviews
between college counselors and community college students, Erickson and
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
9
Schultz (1981) found that establishing similarity was critical for whether a
counselor believed a student had potential for future success and delivered a
positive recommendation. Comembership could occur on various lines, but
similarities in experience and culture were most crucial. In a study of hiring practices in elite corporations, Rivera (2012) found that job applicants
who displayed class-based commonalities with their interviewers were more
likely to receive positive hiring recommendations. Yet, because not all societal gatekeepers come from higher-class backgrounds, having a wide cultural repertoire from which to draw to establish commonalities with anyone
one depends on for access to valued resources can facilitate educational and
occupational success (Erickson, 1996). Perpetuating existing class inequalities, members of higher classes are most likely to exhibit such cultural breadth
that is useful for advancement (Peterson & Simkus, 1992).
EMBODYING CLASS
Finally, class is made salient in social interaction through the body. Whether
the weathered hands of the manual laborer, the straightened and whitened
teeth of the middle classes, or the smooth foreheads and svelte yoga arms
of upper-class women, experiences of privilege and underprivilege are
inscribed in our skin and muscles (Bourdieu, 1984). For example, individuals who live in low-income neighborhoods have less access to healthy,
nonprocessed food; partially for this reason, obesity is significantly more
common among the lower classes (De Schutter, 2011). Consequently, we can
judge someone’s social class with a surprising degree of accuracy just by
sight (Kraus & Keltner, 2009).
Class also manifests in what we choose to put on our bodies. Whether it’s
the subtle stitching on the back pocket of an up-and-coming designer’s jeans
signaling a three-digit price tag to those in-the-know, the frayed edges of a
faded dress shirt signaling age and use, or a Yale Lacrosse fleece, dress is an
important marker of social class. Dress, however, is perhaps the least reliable
class marker because it is easiest to mimic. Particularly with the spread of the
mass media and internet, it’s no longer necessary to be physically present to
see what’s on the runways in Paris or Milan; one can see the latest trends days
(or even hours) later and purchase imitations for steep discounts via the internet. Perhaps for this reason, more durable and everyday items such as shoes,
watches, and spectacles tend to be seen as more reliable markers of social
class (Rivera, 2010). Moreover, what constitutes upper- versus middle- versus working-class fashion varies by time and place. Goods that were at one
time markers of privilege, such as the classic Burberry tartan scarf in England,
can quickly become a badge of working-class status (Bothwell, 2005).
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Still, some patterns emerge. Individuals from middle- and upper-class
backgrounds tend to prefer products that emphasize their individuality and
make them stand out from the pack, whereas working-class individuals tend
to prefer products that make them fit in with others (Stephens et al., 2007). In
addition, at least among the upper classes, there is a tendency to prioritize
form (e.g., designer, material, history, and mission of the company) over
function (Bourdieu, 1984). The intersection between dress and other visible
markers of class on interpersonal attraction and evaluation represents a
fruitful avenue for future research.
CONCLUSION
In the preceding pages, I reviewed classical and contemporary scholarship
on how social class shapes perception and interaction. Social class influences
how we perceive the world around us and our role and power within it;
which environments feel comfortable versus alienating; how we communicate with others; with whom we will and will not develop positive and
enduring relationships; how we feel, behave, and perform in society’s gatekeeping institutions; and how gatekeepers evaluate our own social, intellectual, and moral worth. In the remainder of the essay, I highlight promising
directions for future research.
CLASSES WITHIN CLASSES
One of the most pressing areas for future research is providing analysis of
variations within social classes. Class does not exist in a vacuum but rather
interacts with other forms of privilege and under-privilege, such as sex and
race; each of which is associated with different patterns of seeing and doing
within the social world (Lareau, 2003; Ridgeway, 2006). As such, future
research should probe deeper into how cognitive orientations, interactional
styles, and gestures vary within the upper, middle, and working classes and
how social class-based cognitive and interactional styles combine with other
status markers to magnify or reduce life chances.
In addition to such demographic distinctions, there are important ideological, cultural, and political divides within classes. Specific interactional styles
may be valued differently in particular subgroups within a given social class.
For example, a Wall Street banker and a professor, considered by many to be
part of the upper-middle class, may have distinctive ways of speaking, dressing, and doing that influence how they are evaluated in various gatekeeping
scenarios. Scholars should study variations in cognitive and interactive styles
among occupations, geographic regions, and relative economic and cultural
rank within a particular social class.
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
11
Moreover, there is a pressing need to analyze the upper class. Economic
inequality in recent decades has increasingly been driven by gains at the
top, making studying economic elites a critical intellectual and social task.
However, academics who study social class have been hesitant to identify
any class as “upper.” For example, the convention in psychology is to consider all individuals whose parents have 4-year college degrees to be “middle
class” (Stephens et al., 2007). Clearly, there are meaningful social and economic differences within this broad and heterogeneous group. Even in sociology, where the study of social class is most developed, the term upper-middle
class is a catch-all for individuals who are more privileged than the average,
college-educated, white-collar worker, such as managers, professionals, and
academics. However, is a physician or lawyer who has received the highest
degree possible and is in the top 2% of incomes nationally really middle or
upper-middle class? With the Occupy Wall Street movement, the top 1% or
even the top 0.1% of income earners have entered the national vocabulary
as the upper class. Perhaps this is because such individuals are safely distant
enough (particularly from those studying class) to be classified as privileged.
However, it is important to not to conflate the super-rich with the upper class.
The upper class, like other strata of the class hierarchy, likely has multiple
levels. Reserving the study of the upper class to the Warren Buffets and Paris
Hiltons of the world obscures much of how social origin serves as a basis of
domination and subordination in contemporary American society.
SIGNATURES OF UPWARD AND DOWNWARD CLASS MOBILITY
As noted earlier, there is ongoing debate as to which measures of class are
more powerful and stable markers of socioeconomic position. However,
scholars have noted that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between
social origin and destination, or with cultural resources and class position
(Kingston, 2001). A promising direction for future research is to analyze
individuals who have experienced significant upward or downward class
mobility within their lifetimes. Given that outsiders often have unique
insights into the norms, manners, and behaviors of a group that are taken
for granted and unnoticed by insiders (Simmel, 1908), studying such individuals could illuminate additional cognitive, interactional, and bodily class
distinctions that affect social attraction, evaluation, and stratification. Such
research could also shed light on the important but understudied question
of whether and how class-based cognitive and interactional styles can be
learned later in life (Aschaffenburg & Mass, 1997). Certain imprints of class
may be more malleable than others. For example, it likely is easier to change
patterns of eye contact and speech than one’s unconscious style of cognitive
processing.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
To conclude, class fundamentally shapes our life experiences and life
chances. By understanding how social class distinctions are perceived and
enacted on the ground in everyday social interactions, we can develop
greater knowledge of how and why social origins affect social destinations.
REFERENCES
Aschaffenburg, K., & Mass, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics
of social reproduction. American Sociological Review, 62, 573–587.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control. London, England: Routledge.
Björklund, A., & Jäntti, M. (1997). Intergenerational income mobility in Sweden compared to the United States. American Economic Review, 87, 1009–1018.
Bothwell, C. (2005). Burberry versus the Chavs. BBC News. Retrieved from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4381140.stm
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge,
ON: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London, England: Sage Publication.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Couch, K., & Dunn, T. (1997). Intergenerational correlations in labor market status:
A comparison of the United States and Germany. Journal of Human Resources, 32,
210–232.
De Schutter, O. (2011). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right
to food. Human Rights Council Nineteenth Session of the United Nations.
Retrieved from http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/
20120306_nutrition_en.pdf
DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52, 440–455.
DiMaggio, P. (2012). Sociological perspectives on the face-to-face enactment of class
distinction. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class (pp. 15–38). New York,
NY: Russell Sage.
Erickson, B. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology, 102,
217–251.
Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1981). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goldthorpe, J., & Chan, T. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction and
its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72, 512–532.
Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 81–89.
Grusky, D., & Weeden, K. (2001). Decomposition without death: A research agenda
for the new class analysis. Acta Sociologica, 44, 203–218.
Kane, D. (2003). Distinction worldwide? Bourdieu’s theory of taste in international
context. Poetics, 31, 403–421.
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
13
Kingston, P. (2001). The classless society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kraus, M., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic
accuracy. Psychological Science, 11, 1716–1723.
Kraus, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing
approach. Psychological Science, 20, 99–106.
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review, 71, 778–807.
Markus, H., & Fiske, S. (2012). Introduction: A wide-angle lens on the psychology of
social class. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class (pp. 1–12). New York,
NY: Russell Sage.
McLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it: Leveled aspirations in a low-income neighborhood.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Peterson, R., & Simkus, A. (1992). How musical tastes mark occupation status groups.
In M. Lamont & M. Fournier (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and
the making of inequality (pp. 152–186). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Riches, P., & Foddy, M. (1989). Ethnic accent as a status cue. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 197–206.
Ridgeway, C. (2006). Gender as an organizing force in social relations: Implications
for the future of inequality. In F. D. Blau, M. B. Brinton & D. B. Grusky (Eds.), The
declining significance of gender? (pp. 265–287). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Ridgeway, C., & Fisk, S. (2012). Class rules, status dynamics, and gateway interactions. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: Social psychology of social
class (pp. 131–151). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Rivera, L. (2010). Status distinctions in interaction: Social selection and exclusion at
an elite nightclub. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 229–255.
Rivera, L. (2011). Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational credentials. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29, 71–90.
Rivera, L. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service
firms. American Sociological Review, 77, 999–1022.
Rivera, L. (2015). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton, NY: Princeton
University Press.
Saez, E. (2008). Striking it richer: The evolution of top incomes in the United States.
Pathways Magazine 6–7. Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality.
Simmel, G. [1950] (1908). The stranger. In K. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel
(pp. 402–408). New York, NY: Free Press.
Staw, B., Sutton, R., & Pelled, L. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable
outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–71.
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., & Markus, H. (2011). When choice does not equal freedom:
A sociocultural analysis of agency in working-class contexts. Social and Personality
Psychology Science, 2, 33–41.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., Markus, H., Johnson, C., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen
disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines
the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197.
Stephens, N., Markus, N., & Fryberg, S. (2012). Social class disparities in health and
education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior.
Psychological Review, 119, 723–744.
Stephens, N., Markus, H., & Townsend, S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The
case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 814–830.
Stephens, N., Townsend, S., & Markus, H. (2012). A cultural mismatch: Independent
cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative emotions
among first-generation college students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48, 1389–1393.
Stevens, M. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vaisey, S., & Lizardo, O. (2010). Can cultural worldviews influence network composition? Social Forces, 88, 1595–1618.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 83–642.
Wright, E. (2000). Foundations of class analysis: A Marxian perspective. In J. Baxter
& M. Western (Eds.), Reconfigurations of class and gender (pp. 14–27). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
LAUREN A. RIVERA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Lauren A. Rivera is an Associate Professor of Management & Organizations
and Sociology at Northwestern University. Her research, which resides at the
cusp of cultural sociology, social psychology, and social stratification, investigates how people evaluate worth and social status in real life, naturalistic
contexts and how the ways they do so relate to broader social class, gender, and racial inequalities. She received her PhD in Sociology from Harvard
University and her BA in Psychology and Sociology from Yale University.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction
15
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Social Classification (Sociology), Elizabeth G. Pontikes
