- Email: [email protected]
Relative influence of prestige as a determiner of intelligence judgments for occupations
Journal of Vocational Behavior 1, 69-74 (1971)
Relative Influence of Prestige as a Determiner of Intelligence Judgments for Occupations MILTON D. HAKEL r Ohio State University
THOMAS D. HOLLMANN Wuyne State University
and JAMES P. OHNESORGE San Diego State College
A forced-choicetest was constructed to determine how well students could discriminate between occupations on the basis of the averageintelligenceof the membersof the various occupational groups. At the outset, it was known that the prestige of the various occupationswould have to be taken into account, and so the 72 forced-choicetest items were systematically constructed to represent24 combinations of intelligence and prestige differences.Accuracy at identifying the occupation with the higher average intelligence was significantly worse than chance,becausesubjectsrelied exclusively on prestige to make their choices.On items where the intelligence difference opposed the prestige difference, subjects could have improved their accuracy by flipping coins. The factors leading to significantly worse than chanceaccuracy,and the potency of prestige,are discussed.
One major factor influencing occupational choices and perceptions is the prestige or social status accorded to persons in the various occupations. There are clear-cut and highly stable differences among occupations in their relative
prestige, and this has been shown many times (Counts, 1925; Osgood & Stagner, 1941; Deeg & Paterson, 1947; Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1966; and Hakel, Holhuann, & Dunnette, 1968, among others). Occupational prestige is only one of many dimension, such as education, income, intellectual ability requirements, skill requirements, amount of supervision, job security, etc., which vary from one occupation to the next. But whenever the interrelations of occupational dimensions are studied, ratings of prestige dominate the results (Cattell, 1942; Stefflre, 1959; and Blau 8z Duncan, 1967). rILeprints may be obtained from the seniorauthor, Dept. Psychology,1945N. High St., Columbus,Ohio 43210.
69
70
HAKEL,
HOLLMANN,
AND OHNESORGE
Occupational prestige is an extremely potent variable, as anyone minimally familiar with the literature will agree. It is easy to take this fact for granted. But prestige is so potent that it can produce unexpected and implausible results, and it is well to be appraised of such possibilities. This study set out to determine how well individuals can discriminate among occupations on the basis of the average intelligence of job incumbents in those occupations. The basic objective was to identify a social analog to the just noticeable difference. It was suspected that prestige might mask true differences between occupations on intelligence thus leading to inaccurate judgment, so the prestige of occupations became a control variable in the design. METHOD One hundred ninety-seven students from introductory psychology classes at the University of Minnesota participated in this research for optional credit toward their course grades. Each student completed a 72-item forced-choice test in which he was instructed to select the occupation in each pair that would get the higher average score on an intelligence test. The Forced-Choice Occupational Intelligence Test was constructed by systematically pairing occupations to represent 24 combinations of prestige and intelligence differences. First, prestige ratings for 201 occupations were obtained from 381 University of Minnesota students, and means were computed for each occupation. For 113 of these occupations, mean ACCT scores were taken from Stewart’s (1947) report on intelligence testing in the Army in World War II. Occupations were systematically paired in the forced-choice items so that the difference between the paired occupations on mean ACCT score was equal to 0, tM, tl, or +I+$. SD (ACCT SD), and the difference between occupations on mean prestige rating was equal to - 1, -%, 0, tM, t 1, or t1M SD (taken from the distribution of mean prestige ratings for all 201 occupations). In total there were 24 types of items (four levels of AGCT mean differences X six levels of prestige differences), with three items per type. Occupations paired ranged from Accountant and Photographer to Longshoreman and Cook’s helper. Placement of the correct answer (the occupation with the higher mean AGCT score) was randomized within items, and two forms of the test were used to counterbalance position effects. RESULTS Responses to the forced-choice test were analyzed by counting the number of correct responses to each type of item and examining accuracy across types. Excluding items which had no correct answer (AGCT mean difference = 0), total scores were computed, and the mean number of correct choices for
71
PRESTIGEAND JOB DISCRIMINATION TABLE 1 Proportion of Correct Responses(Accurate Identification of the Occupation with the Higher MeanAGCT Score) for 18 Types of Storable Items (N = 197) AGCT scoredifferences
Prestige differences +l SD +% SD 0
-% SD -1 SD -1% SD
Column average
yi SD
1 SD
1%SD
67 60 40 38 32 24 43
76 70 58 40 44 23 52
75 69 57 41 21 19 47
Row average
73 66 52 40 32 22 47
the 54 storable items was 25.08. This should be compared with the mean score that would be obtained if chance alone were operating (chance mean = 27.00, SD = 3.68). So far as total scores are concerned, these students did significantly worse than chance @ < .OOl)! This implausible conclusion can be understood by examining the results for the 18 types of storable items, as shown in Table 1. Examination of Table 1 shows a strong prestige effect, as the proportion of correct responses varies directly with the magnitude of the prestige differences. By contrast, the proportion of correct responses varies erratically with the size of the AGCT score difference. An analysis of variance contrasting prestige and AGCT scores as determiners of accuracy scores is reported in Table 2. This analysis confirms the trends revealed in Table 1, and shows that not only is prestige an important factor to be considered when asking people to compare occupations on the basis of intelligence, but that prestige is the only systematic factor operating. The omega-square for prestige is .374, but it is only .006 for AGCT score differences. Prestige is so’ potent a factor that it obscures differences between occupations in intelligence unless those differences actually run parallel to differences in prestige. The subjects typically followed a strategy of choosing the more prestigious occupation in a pair as the one with higher intelligence scores. This strategy occasionally led to accuracy, as in the top two rows of Table 1, but more often it led to inaccuracy, as in the bottom three rows. If a subject was perfectly accurate in identifying the more prestigious occupation and always chose that occupation as having the higher intelligence score, his total score on the 54 storable items would have been 22.50, a value not too far removed
72
HAKEL, HOLLMANN, AND OHNESORGE TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance of Accuracy Scores on the Forced-Choice Occupational Intelligence Test (54 storable items)
Source of variation
df
AGCT differences Prestige differences Interaction Error
2 5 10 36
MS 2109.85 11609.12 666.79 1727.31
F 1.2215 6.16180
J .006 .314
.3860
ap < .oi. from the observed grand mean of 25.08. (If a subject was perfectly accurate in judging intelligence levels of occupations, his score would have been 54.00). Additional evidence that the subjects used a prestige-basedstrategy in answering the items comes from examination of 15 items which had no correct answers(AGCT differences = 0) but where prestige differencesvaried by s, 1, or 1?4SD. When the prestige difference was ?4 SD the more prestigious occupation was chosen as more intelligent 64% of the time. When the prestige difference was 1 SD, the more prestigious occupation was selected 69% of the time. When the prestige difference was I?4 SD, the result was 86% endorsementof the more prestigious occupation. One more thing remains to be shown to demonstrate that prestige obscuresjudgments of intelligence, and that is to inquire as to whether intelligence obscuresjudgments of prestige. A control group of 44 students responded to the items of the forced-choice test under instructions to identify the occupation in each pair that has the higher prestige. For the 60 storable items (prestige differences of ?4, 1, or 1%SD), the averageaccuracy score,was 43.97, considerably better than chance (z = 23.67 p < .OOOOOl).Table 3 presents the proportion of correct answersfor the control group, and shows that accuracy of identifying the more prestigious occupation varies directly with the magnitude of the prestige differences but erratically with the intelligencedifferences. The standing of an occupation on intelligence makesno contribution to accuracy independent of that occupation’s standing on prestige. DISCUSSION Prestige is so potent a variable that it can virtually mask differences of even 1?4SD between occupational mean scoreson an intelligence test. It was anticipated that prestige would be an important control variable, and thus it was accounted for in developing the forced-choice occupational intelligence
73
PRESTIGEAND JOB DISCRIMINATION TABLE 3 Accuracy at Identifying the More PrestigiousOccupation in Each Pair, Basedon 60 Storable Items (N = 44) If the prestige difference is: The proportion of correct responses is: If the intelligence difference is: The proportion of correct responsesis:
% SD
1 SD 75
68
+l SD 78
+% SD 73
0 SD 72
1% SD 87
-% SD
-1 SD -l%SD
70
74
87
test. Only now, however, can its massive effect as a source of variance in intelligence judgments be more fully appreciated. How was worse-than-chanceoverall accuracy achieved? It is a consequence of the correlation between prestige and intelligence, and the potency of prestige as a determiner of judgments. For the 113 occupations from which the forced-choice test was constructed, the correlation between mean prestige ratings and mean AGCT scores is .70. Typically, however, prestige ratings correlate in the mid .90’s with ratings of intelligence. Cattell (1942) found a correlation of .95 between ratings of prestige and intelligence for 25 occupations. For 19 occupations studied by Hakel, Hollmann, and Dunnette (1968), we found a correlation of .96 between mean ratings of intelligence made by an independent group of subjects and the prestige rankings reported by Hake1 et al. The point of all this is that subjects overestimate the relationship between prestige and intelligence. While there is sufficient independencebetween prestige ratings and mean AGCT scoresto assurethe construction of forcedchoice items where the prestige and intelligence differences are opposed, subjects are unable to detect that independence. Prestige being the more important variable, subjectswould consistently choosethe more prestigious occupation. Sometimesthey would be correct, sometimesnot. For the 54 storable test items, the subjectswere wrong more often than not. It is apparent from these results that subjectscannot discriminate among occupations on the basis of the averageintelligence of job incumbents in those occupations when occupational prestige is taken into account. Thus, it is not possible in this context (occupational intelligence judgments) to delineate a social analog to the JND from classical psychophysics.Rather, these results testify to the overwhelming importance of prestige in the judgment of occupations. They give a new perspectiveon its effects. REFERENCES Blau, P. M., & Duncan, 0. D. The American occupational 1967.
structure. New York: Wiley,
74
HAKEL, HOLLMANN, AND OHNESORGE
Cattell, R. B. The concept of social status. Journal of Social Psychology, 1942, 15, 293-308. Counts, G. S. Social status of occupations. School Review, 1925, 33, 16-27. Deeg, M. E., & Paterson, D. G. Changes in social status of occupations. Occupations, 1947, 25, 205-208. Hakel, M. D., Hollmann, T. D., & Dunnette, M. D. Stability and change in the social status of occupations over 21 and 42 year periods. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 762-764. Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P. M., & Rossi, P. H. Occupational prestige in the United States, 1925, 1963. American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 72, 286-295. Osgood, C. E., & Stagner, R. Analysis of a prestige frame of reference by a gradient technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1941, 25, 275-290. Stefflre, B. Analysis of the interrelationships of rankings of occupations. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1959, 37, 435-438. Stewart, N. A.G.C.T. scores of Army personnel grouped by occupation. Occupations, 1947, 25, 5-41. Received April 6, 1970
Relative Influence of Prestige as a Determiner of Intelligence Judgments for Occupations MILTON D. HAKEL r Ohio State University
THOMAS D. HOLLMANN Wuyne State University
and JAMES P. OHNESORGE San Diego State College
A forced-choicetest was constructed to determine how well students could discriminate between occupations on the basis of the averageintelligenceof the membersof the various occupational groups. At the outset, it was known that the prestige of the various occupationswould have to be taken into account, and so the 72 forced-choicetest items were systematically constructed to represent24 combinations of intelligence and prestige differences.Accuracy at identifying the occupation with the higher average intelligence was significantly worse than chance,becausesubjectsrelied exclusively on prestige to make their choices.On items where the intelligence difference opposed the prestige difference, subjects could have improved their accuracy by flipping coins. The factors leading to significantly worse than chanceaccuracy,and the potency of prestige,are discussed.
One major factor influencing occupational choices and perceptions is the prestige or social status accorded to persons in the various occupations. There are clear-cut and highly stable differences among occupations in their relative
prestige, and this has been shown many times (Counts, 1925; Osgood & Stagner, 1941; Deeg & Paterson, 1947; Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1966; and Hakel, Holhuann, & Dunnette, 1968, among others). Occupational prestige is only one of many dimension, such as education, income, intellectual ability requirements, skill requirements, amount of supervision, job security, etc., which vary from one occupation to the next. But whenever the interrelations of occupational dimensions are studied, ratings of prestige dominate the results (Cattell, 1942; Stefflre, 1959; and Blau 8z Duncan, 1967). rILeprints may be obtained from the seniorauthor, Dept. Psychology,1945N. High St., Columbus,Ohio 43210.
69
70
HAKEL,
HOLLMANN,
AND OHNESORGE
Occupational prestige is an extremely potent variable, as anyone minimally familiar with the literature will agree. It is easy to take this fact for granted. But prestige is so potent that it can produce unexpected and implausible results, and it is well to be appraised of such possibilities. This study set out to determine how well individuals can discriminate among occupations on the basis of the average intelligence of job incumbents in those occupations. The basic objective was to identify a social analog to the just noticeable difference. It was suspected that prestige might mask true differences between occupations on intelligence thus leading to inaccurate judgment, so the prestige of occupations became a control variable in the design. METHOD One hundred ninety-seven students from introductory psychology classes at the University of Minnesota participated in this research for optional credit toward their course grades. Each student completed a 72-item forced-choice test in which he was instructed to select the occupation in each pair that would get the higher average score on an intelligence test. The Forced-Choice Occupational Intelligence Test was constructed by systematically pairing occupations to represent 24 combinations of prestige and intelligence differences. First, prestige ratings for 201 occupations were obtained from 381 University of Minnesota students, and means were computed for each occupation. For 113 of these occupations, mean ACCT scores were taken from Stewart’s (1947) report on intelligence testing in the Army in World War II. Occupations were systematically paired in the forced-choice items so that the difference between the paired occupations on mean ACCT score was equal to 0, tM, tl, or +I+$. SD (ACCT SD), and the difference between occupations on mean prestige rating was equal to - 1, -%, 0, tM, t 1, or t1M SD (taken from the distribution of mean prestige ratings for all 201 occupations). In total there were 24 types of items (four levels of AGCT mean differences X six levels of prestige differences), with three items per type. Occupations paired ranged from Accountant and Photographer to Longshoreman and Cook’s helper. Placement of the correct answer (the occupation with the higher mean AGCT score) was randomized within items, and two forms of the test were used to counterbalance position effects. RESULTS Responses to the forced-choice test were analyzed by counting the number of correct responses to each type of item and examining accuracy across types. Excluding items which had no correct answer (AGCT mean difference = 0), total scores were computed, and the mean number of correct choices for
71
PRESTIGEAND JOB DISCRIMINATION TABLE 1 Proportion of Correct Responses(Accurate Identification of the Occupation with the Higher MeanAGCT Score) for 18 Types of Storable Items (N = 197) AGCT scoredifferences
Prestige differences +l SD +% SD 0
-% SD -1 SD -1% SD
Column average
yi SD
1 SD
1%SD
67 60 40 38 32 24 43
76 70 58 40 44 23 52
75 69 57 41 21 19 47
Row average
73 66 52 40 32 22 47
the 54 storable items was 25.08. This should be compared with the mean score that would be obtained if chance alone were operating (chance mean = 27.00, SD = 3.68). So far as total scores are concerned, these students did significantly worse than chance @ < .OOl)! This implausible conclusion can be understood by examining the results for the 18 types of storable items, as shown in Table 1. Examination of Table 1 shows a strong prestige effect, as the proportion of correct responses varies directly with the magnitude of the prestige differences. By contrast, the proportion of correct responses varies erratically with the size of the AGCT score difference. An analysis of variance contrasting prestige and AGCT scores as determiners of accuracy scores is reported in Table 2. This analysis confirms the trends revealed in Table 1, and shows that not only is prestige an important factor to be considered when asking people to compare occupations on the basis of intelligence, but that prestige is the only systematic factor operating. The omega-square for prestige is .374, but it is only .006 for AGCT score differences. Prestige is so’ potent a factor that it obscures differences between occupations in intelligence unless those differences actually run parallel to differences in prestige. The subjects typically followed a strategy of choosing the more prestigious occupation in a pair as the one with higher intelligence scores. This strategy occasionally led to accuracy, as in the top two rows of Table 1, but more often it led to inaccuracy, as in the bottom three rows. If a subject was perfectly accurate in identifying the more prestigious occupation and always chose that occupation as having the higher intelligence score, his total score on the 54 storable items would have been 22.50, a value not too far removed
72
HAKEL, HOLLMANN, AND OHNESORGE TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance of Accuracy Scores on the Forced-Choice Occupational Intelligence Test (54 storable items)
Source of variation
df
AGCT differences Prestige differences Interaction Error
2 5 10 36
MS 2109.85 11609.12 666.79 1727.31
F 1.2215 6.16180
J .006 .314
.3860
ap < .oi. from the observed grand mean of 25.08. (If a subject was perfectly accurate in judging intelligence levels of occupations, his score would have been 54.00). Additional evidence that the subjects used a prestige-basedstrategy in answering the items comes from examination of 15 items which had no correct answers(AGCT differences = 0) but where prestige differencesvaried by s, 1, or 1?4SD. When the prestige difference was ?4 SD the more prestigious occupation was chosen as more intelligent 64% of the time. When the prestige difference was 1 SD, the more prestigious occupation was selected 69% of the time. When the prestige difference was I?4 SD, the result was 86% endorsementof the more prestigious occupation. One more thing remains to be shown to demonstrate that prestige obscuresjudgments of intelligence, and that is to inquire as to whether intelligence obscuresjudgments of prestige. A control group of 44 students responded to the items of the forced-choice test under instructions to identify the occupation in each pair that has the higher prestige. For the 60 storable items (prestige differences of ?4, 1, or 1%SD), the averageaccuracy score,was 43.97, considerably better than chance (z = 23.67 p < .OOOOOl).Table 3 presents the proportion of correct answersfor the control group, and shows that accuracy of identifying the more prestigious occupation varies directly with the magnitude of the prestige differences but erratically with the intelligencedifferences. The standing of an occupation on intelligence makesno contribution to accuracy independent of that occupation’s standing on prestige. DISCUSSION Prestige is so potent a variable that it can virtually mask differences of even 1?4SD between occupational mean scoreson an intelligence test. It was anticipated that prestige would be an important control variable, and thus it was accounted for in developing the forced-choice occupational intelligence
73
PRESTIGEAND JOB DISCRIMINATION TABLE 3 Accuracy at Identifying the More PrestigiousOccupation in Each Pair, Basedon 60 Storable Items (N = 44) If the prestige difference is: The proportion of correct responses is: If the intelligence difference is: The proportion of correct responsesis:
% SD
1 SD 75
68
+l SD 78
+% SD 73
0 SD 72
1% SD 87
-% SD
-1 SD -l%SD
70
74
87
test. Only now, however, can its massive effect as a source of variance in intelligence judgments be more fully appreciated. How was worse-than-chanceoverall accuracy achieved? It is a consequence of the correlation between prestige and intelligence, and the potency of prestige as a determiner of judgments. For the 113 occupations from which the forced-choice test was constructed, the correlation between mean prestige ratings and mean AGCT scores is .70. Typically, however, prestige ratings correlate in the mid .90’s with ratings of intelligence. Cattell (1942) found a correlation of .95 between ratings of prestige and intelligence for 25 occupations. For 19 occupations studied by Hakel, Hollmann, and Dunnette (1968), we found a correlation of .96 between mean ratings of intelligence made by an independent group of subjects and the prestige rankings reported by Hake1 et al. The point of all this is that subjects overestimate the relationship between prestige and intelligence. While there is sufficient independencebetween prestige ratings and mean AGCT scoresto assurethe construction of forcedchoice items where the prestige and intelligence differences are opposed, subjects are unable to detect that independence. Prestige being the more important variable, subjectswould consistently choosethe more prestigious occupation. Sometimesthey would be correct, sometimesnot. For the 54 storable test items, the subjectswere wrong more often than not. It is apparent from these results that subjectscannot discriminate among occupations on the basis of the averageintelligence of job incumbents in those occupations when occupational prestige is taken into account. Thus, it is not possible in this context (occupational intelligence judgments) to delineate a social analog to the JND from classical psychophysics.Rather, these results testify to the overwhelming importance of prestige in the judgment of occupations. They give a new perspectiveon its effects. REFERENCES Blau, P. M., & Duncan, 0. D. The American occupational 1967.
structure. New York: Wiley,
74
HAKEL, HOLLMANN, AND OHNESORGE
Cattell, R. B. The concept of social status. Journal of Social Psychology, 1942, 15, 293-308. Counts, G. S. Social status of occupations. School Review, 1925, 33, 16-27. Deeg, M. E., & Paterson, D. G. Changes in social status of occupations. Occupations, 1947, 25, 205-208. Hakel, M. D., Hollmann, T. D., & Dunnette, M. D. Stability and change in the social status of occupations over 21 and 42 year periods. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 762-764. Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P. M., & Rossi, P. H. Occupational prestige in the United States, 1925, 1963. American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 72, 286-295. Osgood, C. E., & Stagner, R. Analysis of a prestige frame of reference by a gradient technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1941, 25, 275-290. Stefflre, B. Analysis of the interrelationships of rankings of occupations. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1959, 37, 435-438. Stewart, N. A.G.C.T. scores of Army personnel grouped by occupation. Occupations, 1947, 25, 5-41. Received April 6, 1970