Estimating occupational prestige

Journal of Vocational Behavior 31, 14-25 (1987)

Estimating Occupational Prestige JUDY M. CHARTRAND, THOMAS E. DOHM, RENA V. DAWIS, AND LLOYD H. LOFQUIST University of Minnesota The occupational prestige literature provides evidence of prestige hierarchies that have remained relatively intact for over 60 years. This article draws from the occupational prestige literature in describing the development of prestige estimates for occupations contained in the Minnesota Occupational ClassiJcation Sysfem III (MOCS III). The first phase of development consisted of an empirical study that involved ranking three sets of 25 occupations. The results provided prestige estimates for 60 occupations and a comparison of prestige scores for 8 “benchmark” occupations. The second phase of development involved testing the comparability of these results with a larger data base. The third phase of development extended the ability to estimate occupational prestige by using a regression equation that allows for assigning prestige estimates to approximately 20,000 occupations. Potential use of the prestige score in the MOCS III is discussed in relation to vocational counseling. 0 1987 Academic press. Inc.

Some occupations in our society command great respect, some command respect, and others fall almost in disdain. In the public’s mind the occupation “Supreme Court Justice” probably engenders a different image than does the occupation postal clerk. Not only are different images frequently evoked by occupations, but often different social consequences prevail. Lauman (1966) found that occupational prestige was associated with friendship and marital choices, place of residence, and desire for social distance with a person. People seemed to draw inferences about an individual based on his/her occupational standing. The underlying criteria used in determining whom we look up to are somewhat subjective and can be differentiated from occupational status, which is derived directly from the educational requirements and income associated with an occupation (Pavalko, 1971). Because of these subjective elements, occupational prestige should have the same interpretation for different people at different points in time if it is to be useful in discussing We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Sharon McCord and David Peterson in data collection. Requests for reprints should be sent to Judy Chartrand, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. MN 55455. 14 OOOI-8791/87 $3.00 Copyright 0 1987 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

OCCUPATIONAL

15

PRESTIGE

occupational perceptions. That is, people of various ages and diverse backgrounds must agree, for example, that being a judge is a prestigious occupation. If the prestige level of occupations remains relatively constant, then occupational prestige estimates may be useful to vocational clients and counselors in developing career plans and adjusting vocational expectations. For example, occupational prestige may be an important piece of information for individuals with strong status needs. It may also be valuable in helping individuals choose between two occupations having similar ability requirements and providing similar economic rewards, but differing in prestige level. A counselor could use prestige information when a client’s ability does not meet his/her aspiration level by finding occupations with lower requirements but equal prestige. These examples illustrate situations when prestige information can be of benefit to clients and counselors in vocational counseling. The next few paragraphs briefly review the occupational prestige literature, focusing on prestige stability across several generations of studies that employed different samples and methods. Following this review, several implications stemming from the prestige literature are discussed in relation to vocational counseling and planning. These two steps provide the background and rationale for a study of occupational prestige that was undertaken as part of the development of the Minnesota Occupational Classijication System ZZZ(MOCS III) (Dawis, Dohm, Lofquist, Chartrand, & Due, 1987). OVERVIEW

OF THE LITERATURE:

MILESTONES

AND CLASSICS

Counts (1925), in a classic study of occupational prestige, asked college and high school students and high school teachers to rank 35 occupations according to the degree to which they “looked up to” an occupation. The results indicated strong agreement in the rank ordering of the occupations across all subjects. Occupations such as banker and college professor were ranked near the top, farmer and bookkeeper in the middle and waiter and street cleaner near the bottom. Deeg and Paterson (1946) replicated Count’s study using 25 of the original 45 occupations. Subjects included high school, undergraduate, and graduate students. The correlation between the 1925 and 1946 rankings was a robust .97, leading the authors to comment on the stability of occupational prestige over major societal shifts such as a great depression and a world war. In 1967, Hakel, Hollman, and Dunnette (1968) replicated the Deeg and Paterson study using undergraduate students. They found a .93 correlation between the 1946 and I%7 rank orders and a .88 correlation between the 1925 and 1%7 rank orders. Recently, Thomas and O’Brien (1984) performed another replication, and once again found little change in the rank orders (e.g., 1925 and 1982, r = .95; 1967 and 1982, r = .92).

16

CHARTRAND

ET AL.

Treiman (1977) questioned the approach of the aforementioned studies on three grounds: representativeness of the occupations rated, represenativeness of the subjects used, and the ranking procedure employed. The first two concerns are important if generalizability is a goal. The third concern seems to be more a matter of preference. Research stemming from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) addressed these concerns by using different occupations, different subject pools, and different rating procedures. NORC surveys were conducted in 1947 (cited in Reiss, Duncan, Hatt, & North, l%l) and 1963 (Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964) using 2290 and 615 subjects, respectively. Occupational prestige was operationalized by asking respondents to give their own opinion of the “general standing” of an occupation using the following categories: excellent standing, good standing, average standing, somewhat below average standing, and I don’t know where to place that one. The product-moment correlation between the two samples was .99 (Hodge et al., 1964). The data from the 1%3 sample when compared with Count’s (1925) data resulted in a correlation of .93. Prestige data have yielded uniform results both within and across studies employing student and national samples, various occupational sets, and differing operational definitions of prestige. The stability of occupational prestige holds cross nationally as well, at least for industrialized countries (Inkeles & Rossi, 1956; Siegel, Hodge, & Rossi, 1974; Treiman 1977). There is also evidence to suggest that prestige ratings are similar for raters differing in gender, and for occupations that are female or male dominated (Stefhre, Resnikoff, & Lezotte, 1968). In a more focused study Kiland (1959) asked employees in two Veterans Administration Hospitals to rank 23 occupations that were relevant to a medical work setting to determine if differences would emerge when using a family of occupations that require finer discriminations and raters well acquainted with the occupations. He found that a hospital hierarchy did emerge in both hospital samples, though consensus was more moderate (Rho,,, = .63 and .48) than that typically found in the broader based studies. Closely related occupations were rated similarly, and there was strong consensus for occupations at the top of the hierarchy. However, there was a strong tendency for subjects to inflate the rating of their own occupation. Thomas and O’Brien (1982) also found this tendency, with business majors rating occupations in the business field higher than education and law majors. Granger (1958) asked a sample of psychologists to rank 20 occupations within the field of psychology. Consistent with the previous research, he found a clear prestige hierarchy for the psychology profession with psychology professors at large universities at the top of the hierarchy

OCCUPATIONAL

17

PRESTIGE

and employment interviewers at the bottom. Jorve (1960) found similar patterns within the divisions of counseling and clinical psychology. In summary, occupational prestige is a reliable, stable concept that holds the same meaning for different people at different points in time. Prestige hierarchies exist across occupations, within work settings, and within professional fields. Occupational prestige is not influenced by the gender of rater or worker, though it may be influenced by occupational affiliation of the rater. The studies discussed in this paper are only representative; Treiman (1977) presents a more extensive review of the occupational prestige literature. An overview of the occupational prestige literature indicates that occupational prestige is a dimension that most people are aware of and agree on. However, familiarity across occupations often varies, as does the accuracy of prestige perceptions (e.g., when ratng one’s own occupation). In addition, an occupation (e.g., counseling psychologist) may be perceived as prestigious to the general public, but not within a more limited setting (e.g., a hospital) (Kiland, 1959). Situations involving lack of occupational famiharity, biased occupational perceptions, or contextual prestige level, suggest a need in vocational counseling for a source listing occupational prestige estimates. Incorporating occupational prestige estimates within a larger occupational classification systemprovides a context for comparing prestige level with other important sources of occupational information, such as ability and training requirements, occupational reinforcers, interests, temperaments and physical demands. The next section of this paper describes the development of a method for estimating occupational prestige for occupations in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (United States Department of Labor, 1977). The project involved three phases: a calibration study that applied the Deeg and Paterson approach to different sets of occupations; a comparison of these data with the NORC data (cited in Treiman, 1977); and the development of a formula for estimating occupational prestige using job analysts’ rating information contained in the 1965 edition of the DOT (United States Department of Labor). PHASE 1: A CALIBRATION

STUDY

Purpose

A study was conducted with three objectives: First, we wanted to assess rater agreement when an alternation ranking procedure is used to obtain prestige data. A ranking procedure provides a stricter test of agreement among raters than the Likeit procedure used in the NORC studies. Specifically, we sought information on rater consensus (interrater reliability) across a sample of 25 occupations and on measures of rank variability for each occupation (standard error of measurement). Second,

18

CHARTRAND

ET AL.

we wanted to compare the relative prestige rank of eight “benchmark” occupations when they were embedded in three samples of occupations that differed from each other and from the original list of 25 occupations used by Deeg and Paterson (1946). Finally, we planned to estimate prestige levels for a set of 60 occupations. Method The raters consisted of 99 undergraduate psychology students at a large midwestern university. Three separate ranking forms were used. The forms were randomly distributed with each subject receiving only one form. The rater sample for each occupational rating form was as follows: Form 1 = 35; Form 2 = 32; Form 3 = 32. Subjects received extra credit for their participation. Instrument Three separate occupational ranking forms, each containing 25 occupations, were used in this study. The instructions were identical across forms and closely paraphrase those used by Deeg and Paterson (1946), Hake1 et al. (I%@, and Thomas and O’Brien (1984). The instructions read, “In our society some occupations are looked up to more than others. The following is a list of occupations that have a certain degree of prestige in our society.” Subjects were then instructed to arrange each occupation according to relative prestige using an alternation ranking procedure. Eight occupations (banker, barber, carpenter, electrician, janitor, lawyer, physician, and machinist) were common to Form 1 and Form 2. Form 3 contained all of these “benchmark” occupations except janitor, which had to be omitted in order to maintain the limit of 25 occupations per form. These eight occupations were chosen as representative of differing prestige levels found in the Deeg and Paterson study. Each form also contained 17 or 18 occupations in addition to the “benchmark’ occupations. These occupations represent the 60 occupations on which prestige information was desired. A stratified random blocking system was used to assign occupations to each form. Occupational areas (e.g., professional and trade) from the DOT were used to divide occupations into blocks. Procedure Subjects were informed that the purpose of this study was to estimate occupational prestige level using the perceptions of the general public. Subjects agreeing to participate were asked to sign an informed consent sheet that requested release of aggregated information from the data for research purposes. Finally, subjects were told to read the instructions carefully before completing the form.

OCCUPATIONAL

PRESTIGE

19

Results Standardized prestige scores (x = 50, SD = 10) for the 60 occupations ranked in this study are presented in Table 1. Interrater agreement across the three sets of 25 occupations was .98, 99, and 99, respectively. There was less rater variation (i.e., a smaller standard deviation) for occupations requiring specific educational training (e.g., physician and lawyer). The standard error of measurement ranged from .084 for physician on Form 1 to 1.10 for nurse aide on Form 3. The standard scores and relative rank orderings of the eight “benchmark” occupations are listed in Table 2. A comparison of our results with those of previous studies indicates that the prestige level (see Table 1) and rank order of these occupations is not influenced greatly by the sample set of occupations in which they are included. The stability of these ranks support the possibility of developing scaling anchors for generalizing prestige scores to a larger set of occupations when survey data are not available. PHASE 2: COMPARISON OF TWO DATA SETS David Treiman (1977) used data from 85 occupational prestige studies covering 60 national and cultural groups to develop the Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale. Data from the United States came from the Hodge et al. (1964) and Siegel et al. (1974) studies that were conducted during the years 1963-1965. Standardized prestige scores for 334 occupations rated in the United States are listed in Appendix D of Treiman’s (1977) book. Comparing data from our study with Treiman’s data, we correlated prestige scores for 31 occupations. The results which are shown in Table 3, yielded a correlation of .91. Based on the strength of this relationship, and on previous research, we felt confident in using the prestige scores from the United States listing in Treiman’s book as one data base source. PHASE 3: ESTIMATING PRESTIGE FROM DOT INFORMATION The ultimate goal of our prestige project was to develop, for MOCS III, a method of estimating prestige for all occupations. Our study provided estimates for 60 occupations and Treiman’s source provided estimates on 334 occupations. However, a method was needed to obtain prestige scores.for a much larger sample of occupations. To meet this need, a prediction study was conducted using job analysts’ ratings of interests and temperaments, educational level, and general aptitudes required for a given occupation. The criterion was standardized prestige scores from Treiman’s data base. The sample consisted of 82 occupations for which empirical data (i.e., occupational reinforcer patterns and occupational aptitude patterns) were available. The results of a simple regression analysis are shown in Table 4. Six significant predictors emerged: (a)

20

CHARTRAND

Standardized

ET AL.

TABLE 1 Prestige Scores for 60 Occupations”

Occupation

Standard score

Accountant, certified public Airplane-tlight attendant Assembler, electrical equipment Assembler, electronic Assembler, production Auto service station attendant Automobile mechanic Banker (form 1) Banker (form 2) Banker (form 3) Barber (form 1) Barber (form 2) Barber (form 3) Bookkeeper I Carpenter (form 1) Carpenter (form 2) Carpenter (form 3) Caseworker Cement mason Claim adjuster Compositor Counselor (vocational rehabilitation) Credit clerk Dietitian Digital-computer operator Drafter, architectual Electrician (form 1) Electrician (form 2) Electrician (form 3) Electronic mechanic Engineer, stationary Exterminator Furniture upholsterer Glazier Janitor (form 1) Janitor (form 2) Key-punch operator Lather Lawyer (form 1) Lawyer (form 2) Lawyer (form 3) Librarian Line installer repairer Machinist (form 1) Machinist (form 2) Machinist (form 3) Maintenance person, factory Marker

62 53 43 44 39 35 44 63 63 62 45 46 46 55 51 54 52 52 42 56 48 58 45 48 57 61 57 57 59 54 61 37 43 41 34 35 48 46 65 65 65 56 46 46 49 47 38 39

OCCUPATIONAL TABLE

21

PRESTIGE

I-Continued

Occupation

Standard score

Meat cutter Nurse aide Nurse, LP Occupational therapist Office machine servicer Pattern maker, metal Physical therapist Physician (form 1) Physician (form 2) Physician (form 3) Pipefitter Presser, machine Process artist Punch press operator Radiological technician Sales agent, real estate Salesperson, general hardware Stenographer, technical civil service Stock clerk Teacher aide Telephone operator Teller Tool-and-die maker Truck driver, heavy Truck driver, light TV service and repairer Waiter-waitress

44 49 61 60 46 48 59 66 66 66 41 38 54 38 60 59 43 50 38 51 43 51 50 39 40 41 37

a Conversions to standard scores were based on a mean of 13.0 and a standard deviation of 7.36. The mean and standard deviation remained constant because each form contained 25 occupations.

verbal aptitude, (b) general educational development (GED), (c) interest 4, (d) numerical aptitude, (e) general aptitude, and (f) temperament 9. This combination yielded a multiple R of 90, which accounts for 81.3% of the prestige score variance. The strength of this relationship lends credence to the use of this regression equation for developing prestige estimates for the occupations listed in the DOT. This method is capable of providing prestige estimates for approximately 20,000 occupations. In summary, a three-part project was designed to incorporate prestige estimates in an occupational classification system so that prestige information would be available to users of the system. The first phase of this project provided information on interrater reliability, occupational rank variability, and influence of occupational sample set on prestige estimates. The second phase of the project lent further support for generalizability

22

CHARTRAND

ET AL.

TABLE 2 A Comparison of Rank Orders of Benchmark Occupations Relative rank order Benchmark occupations Banker Barber Carpenter Electrician Janitor Lawyer Machinist Physician

Form 1

Form 2

Form 3

3 J

3

5

7 5

4 8 2 6 1

4 8 2 6 1

1982“

1925

1946’

1967

3

1

2.5

3

3

7

J

7

J

J

5 4 8 2 6 1

6 5 8 3 4 2

6 5 8 2.5 4 1

5 4 8 2 6 1

6 4 8 2 5 1

L?Counts (1925). b Deeg and Paterson (1946). ’ Hakel, Hollman, and Dunnette (1968). d Thomas and O’Brien (1984).

of occupational prestige estimates across occupational samples, rater characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status), and rating procedures employed. These two phases of the project increased confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the occupational prestige estimates derived, during the third phase of the project, from a regression equation using job analysts’ estimates of occupational characteristics. DISCUSSION The data indicate that prestige is highly correlated with ability and educational requirements; however, for many occupations prestige estimates provide independent information. Occupational prestige estimates can be used for clients seeking prestigious occupations, or for clients seeking occupations of equivalent prestige, but differing in training or ability requirements. Prestige estimates can also help correct inaccurate perceptions clients may have regarding specific occupations. Several examples, drawn from MOCS III, are used to illustrate how prestige information could be used to aid vocational counseling. Take the case of a client who wants to be a speech pathologist, but does not have the predicted ability for successfully completing requisite training. One alternative occupation a counselor could suggest is occupational therapist. It is in the medical field, it provides similar occupational reinforcers, it is a high-prestige occupation, and it has lower ability requirements. A second alternative is radiological technologist, also a high-prestige occupation with lower ability requirements. Knowing that prestigious alternatives exist may increase clients’ willingness to lower

OCCUPATIONAL

Correlation

23

PRESTIGE

TABLE 3 for 31 Occupations in Minnesota and Treiman Data Sheets

Occupation Physician Lawyer Banker Accountant Occupational therapist Real estate agent Job counselor Electrician Librarian Bookkeeper Stewardess Carpenter Bank teller Stenographer Tool-and-die maker Dietitian Pattern maker Keypunch operator Machinist Telephone installer Barber Assembly line worker Upholsterer Telephone operator Cement finisher Window glass installer Truck driver Stock clerk Waiter waitress Filling station attendant Janitor

Minnesota standard score

Treiman standard score

66 65 63 62 60 59 58 58 56 55 53 52 51 50 50 48 48 48 47 46 46 44 43 43 42 41 40 38 37 35 34

12 69 67 58 58 51 56 54 57 53 53 50 54 50 49 55 48 51 53 41 47 42 43 48 43 40 43 39 37 37 34

Note. MN Mean = 49.58; MN Standard Deviation = 8.91; Treiman Mean = 50.25; Treiman Standard Deviation = 9.10. Pearson product-moment correlation = .91.

their occupational aspirations. In a second example, a client interested in the helping profession desires a prestigious occupation, but is uncertain about making a commitment to years of advanced training. A counselor can point out that occupations such as psychologist, social worker, and guidance counselor have similar ability requirements, provide an equivalent amount of prestige, but dilfer in educational requirements. In this situation a client could choose an occupation with lower educational requirements without losing prestige. In a final example, a client wants to be involved in a sales occupation but is concerned because she believes that sales

24

CHARTRAND

ET AL.

TABLE 4 Stepwise Regression Analysis for Predicting Prestige from Job Analysts’ Estimates of Occupational Characteristics Predictors Verbal aptitude GED Interest 4 Numerical aptitude General aptitude Temperament 96

Significance 0 .OOl .OOl .045 ,022 .038

Multiple R

RZ

Simple R

.841 .862 ,881 .887 .8% ,902

.707 .744 ,776 .788 .802 .813

- .841 .741 .548 - .616 -.809 .297

Note. Job analysts’ estimates of occupational characteristics were taken from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Vol. II (United States Department of Labor, 1965, p. 654). The negative correlations obtained for verbal, numerical, and general aptitude are due to reversed scoring. a Interest 4: “Situations involving a preference for working for people for their presumed good, as in the social welfare sense, or for dealing with people and language in social situations.” b Temperament 9: “Situations involving the evaluation (arriving at generalizations, judgments, or decisions) of information against sensory or judgmental criteria.”

occupations are not highly regarded in our society. A counselor can use prestige estimates to point out that sales agents (e.g., real estate, securities, insurance) are moderately prestigious occupations. The stability of occupational prestige is particularly noteworthy. After comparing prestige scores for occupations between the years 1925 and 1946, Deeg and Paterson (1946) noted that prestige had remained stable through a great depression and a devastating world war. In the last 40 years, we have witnessed two more wars, a steady influx of women into the work force and up the corporate ladder, periods of recession and inflation, and a technological revolution; yet, occupational prestige has remained stable. Over the years, investigations have relied on national opinion, student opinion, Likert rating, rank ordering, representative occupational samples, and circumscribed occupational samples, without changing the results. The prestige level of an occupation is a relevant piece of information for clients and counselors as they work through the vocational decisionmaking process. Accurate knowledge of occupational prestige can help clarify perceptions about an occupation, and aid in evaluating the merits of potential occupational choices. REFERENCES Counts, G. S. (1925). Social status of occupations. School Review, 33, 16-27. Dawis, R. V., Dohm, T. E., Lofquist, L. H., Chartrand, J. M., & Due, A. M. (1987).

OCCUPATIONAL

PRESTIGE

25

Minnesota occupational classification system III. Minneapolis: Vocational Psychology Research, Work Adjustment Project, University of Minnesota. Deeg, M. E., & Paterson, D. G. (1946). Changes in social status of occupations. Occupations, 25, 205-208. Granger, S. (1958). The prestige hierarchy among occupations in psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Hake& M. D., Hollman, T. D., & Dunnette, M. D. (1968). Stability and change in the social status of occupations over 21 and 42 year periods. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 46, 762-164. Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P. M., & Rossi, P. H. (1964). Occupational prestige in the United States, 1925-1%3. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 286-302. Inkeles, A., & Rossi, P. H. (1956). National comparisons of occupational prestige. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 329-339. Jorve, W. R. (1960). Occupational prestige of clinical and counseling psychology specialities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Kiland, J. (1959). Occupationalprestige in two veteran’s administration hospitals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Lauman, E. 0. (1966). Prestige and association in an urban community. New York: BobbsMerrill. Pavalko, R. M. (1971). Sociology ofoccupations andprofessions. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Reiss, A. J., Jr., Duncan, 0. D., Hatt, P. K., & North, C. C. (l%l). Occuparions and social status. New York: Free Press. Siegel, P. M., Hodge, R. W., & Rossi, P. H. (1974). Occupational prestige in the United States. New York: Academic Press. Stefthe, B., Resnikoff, A., & Lezotte, L. (1968). The relationship of sex to occupational prestige. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 46, 765-112. Thomas, K. A., & O’Brien, R. A. (1984). Occupational status and prestige: Perceptions of business, education, and law students. Vocational Guidance, 33, 70-75. Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. New York: Academic Press. United States Department of Labor. (1%5). Dictionary of occupational titles (3d ed.). Washington, DC: United States Govt. Printing Office. United States Department of Labor. (1977). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC. United States Govt. Printing Office. Received: October 7, 1986.