“i am working-class”: subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and...

8/12/2019 I am working-class: Subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and socioeconomic status in hi

1/12

1

I am Working-Class:Subjective Self-Definition as a Missing Measure of

Social Class and Socioeconomic Status in Higher Education Research

Mark Rubin

The University of Newcastle, AustraliaNida Denson

University of Western Sydney

Sue KilpatrickUniversity of Tasmania

Kelly E. Matthews

The University of Queensland

Tom StehlikUniversity of South Australia

and

David Zyngier

Monash University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark

Rubin at the School of Psychology, the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW2308, Australia. Tel: +61 (0)2 4921 6706. Fax: +61 (0)2 4921 6980. E-mail:

[email protected]

The correct reference for this article is as follows:

Rubin, M., Denson, N., Kilpatrick, S., Matthews, K. E., Stehlik, T., & Zyngier, D. (2014). I am working-

class: Subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and socioeconomic status in highereducation research.Educational Researcher. doi:10.3102/0013189X14528373

This self-archived version is provided for non-commercial, scholarly purposes only.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528373http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528373http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528373http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528373


2/12

2

AbstractThis review provides a critical appraisal of the measurement of students social

class and socioeconomic status (SES) in the context of widening higher education

participation. Most assessments of social class and SES in higher education havefocused on objective measurements based on the income, occupation, and

education of students' parents, and they have tended to overlook diversity among

students based on factors such as age, ethnicity, indigeneity, and rurality.

However, recent research in psychology and sociology has stressed the moresubjective and intersectional nature of social class. The authors argue that it is

important to consider subjective self-definitions of social class and SES alongside

more traditional objective measures. The implications of this dual measurement

approach for higher education research are discussed.

Keywords: diversity; first-generation students; intersectionality; self-definition;

social class; socioeconomic status


3/12

3

I am Working-Class:Subjective Self-Definition as a Missing Measure of

Social Class and Socioeconomic Status in Higher Education Research

The purpose of this review is to provide a critical appraisal of themeasurement of studentssocial class and socioeconomic status (SES) in higher

education and suggest a more integrative approach that incorporates subjective

measures from psychology and sociology alongside the more traditional objective

measures of parental education, income, and occupation. We begin by definingsocial class and SES and explaining the importance of these variables in higher

education research. We highlight the limitations of conventional, objective

assessments of social class and SES in this area. We then discuss recent advances

in psychology and sociology that have demonstrated the utility of moresubjective, self-definitional measures. We discuss the advantages of these

subjective measures and conclude by calling for an integrative approach that

includes both subjective and objective measures of social class and SES.Defining Social Class and SES

Social class and SES arebased on an interaction between peoples social,

cultural, and economic backgrounds and status. Like other sociostructuralvariables (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity), social class and SES have powerful

influences on peoples personality and behavior (Ostrove & Cole, 2003). They

predict what clothes people wear, what food they eat, how they talk, their

attitudes, values and preferences, and their physical and mental health (Kraus &Stephens, 2012).

Although often conflated with one another, social class and SES can be

distinguished as separate constructs (e.g., Ostrove & Cole, 2003). SES refers to

ones currentsocial and economic situation and, consequently, it is relativelymutable, especially in countries that provide opportunities for economic

advancement. In contrast, social class refers to ones sociocultural background

and is more stable, typically remaining static across generations (Jones & Vagle,2013). Hence, it is possible for a working-class person to have a relatively high

SES while remaining in a stereotypically blue-collar occupation. Perhaps

because social class is more stable than SES, it is also more likely to be associatedwith intergroup power and status differences that act as the basis for

discrimination and prejudice (Ostrove & Cole, 2003). For example, recent

research has found evidence of classism at universities (Langhout, Drake, &

Rosselli, 2009).

The Importance of Social Class and SES Diversity in Higher EducationInternational research in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development countries has identified social class and SES as key factors in

determining participation, performance, and retention in higher education (e.g.,


4/12

4

James, 2008; Maras, 2007). In particular, researchers have found that working-class and low SES students are less likely to obtain good grades, complete their

degrees, and feel socially integrated at their university (for meta-analytic

evidence, see Robbins, Le, Davis, Lauver, Langley, & Carlstrom, 2004; Rubin,2012a). As Devlin (2013) pointed out, this inequality derives from an interaction

between student and university factors. Working-class and low SES students are

less familiar than middle-class and high SES students with the established cultural

norms of universities (e.g., terminology, styles, ways of speaking, worldviews, theroles of students and staff, etc.). Devlin suggests that students and institutions

must work together to bridge this socio-cultural incongruity (see also Stephens,

Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012).

It is imperative for educational researchers to consider social class andSES in their studies in order to understand the implications of diversity in higher

education and imbue their work with societal relevance. As a prominent

researcher in this field explained, we can no longer plan an effective researchagenda based on the assumption that our undergraduate student population is

made up of White undergraduates from middle or upper-middle class homes

(Pascarella, 2006, p. 512). Consequently, higher education researchers need touse sensitive and valid measures of social class and SES in order to provide

relevant information to assist higher education administrators and policy-makers

in addressing the challenges faced by working-class and low SES students.

Below, we consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of traditional, objectivemeasures of social class and SES that have been used in educational research.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Objective Measures of Social Class

Most assessments of social class and SES in educational research havefocused on objective measurements that are based on income, occupation,

education, and material possessions (for reviews, see Rubin, 2012a; Sirin, 2005).

For example, students might be asked to estimate their annual household income,report the occupation and education levels of their parents, and/or indicate

whether or not they own a computer or laptop. This objective measurement

approach is useful because it limits the influence of subjective biases in studentsself-reports. Research based on this objective approach has successfully

identified the social class differences in participation, performance, and retention

in higher education that we discussed earlier. Based on this research, it is clear

that objective differences in income can have a profound effect on the time that

students have available for studying and socializing as well as the availability andquality of their study resources (e.g., owning a laptop). In addition, differences in

parental education levels have been shown to predict exposure to socio-culturaluniversity norms that help students to navigate university life (Rubin, 2012b;

York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). Hence, it is not our aim to reject this well-


5/12

5

established and fruitful approach to studying social class and SES. Nonetheless,we do feel that it is important to highlight a few key limitations of this objective

measurement approach.

First, objective measures of social class and SES need to be benchmarkedand interpreted relative to population-based standards, and these can be difficult

and controversial to establish. In particular, if social class and/or SES are

conceptualized as categorical variables, then decisions about how many categories

to include and the cut-off points for these categories are debateable (Bourdieu,1987, p. 2). Even after agreement is reached on such issues, the resulting

standards are limited to specific time-periods and contexts. Hence, objective

standards can become quickly out-dated and cannot be generalized outside of the

local contexts in which they were developed. Indeed, there are no internationalconventions for measuring social class or SES.

Second, as a target population in higher education, most undergraduate

university students have yet to establish a stable income, occupation, or level ofeducation. Consequently, educational researchers often refer to students' parents

as relevant proxies for these variables (for a meta-analytic review, see Rubin,

2012a). However, this relatively indirect approach tells us more about studentsparents than about the students themselves; a problem that is exacerbated for older

students. For example, the parental education of an older, mature-aged student is

less relevant to their SES than the parental education of a younger, more

traditional-aged student. A further problem with this approach is that studentsoften do not know the income, occupation, and/or education of their parents. For

example, one study found that 51% of respondents were unable to complete a

family income measure (Jetten, Iyer, Tsivrikos, & Young, 2008, Study 1). Hence,

references to parental income, occupation, and/or education can lead to problemswith missing data. Researchers can collect data from students parentsin order to

deal with this problem. However, it may be difficult to recruit students parents in

some cases, again leading to the problem of missing data.Third, social class and SES are closely bound to other sociodemographic

variables in educational contexts, such as age, ethnicity, indigeneity, and

regionality or what Bourdieu (1985, 1987) termed a persons cultural and socialcapital or habitus. Consequently, a fair assessment of social class and SES

requires that they are considered in the context of these co-occurring constructs.

For example, although the education or family income of an ethnic minority

member might be considered to be low relative to a majority population

standard, it might also be considered to be high relative to the persons minoritygroup (Adler & Stewart, 2007; Ostrove, Adler, Kuppermann, & Washington,

2000). Objective measures are inherently acontextual, and consequently theyoverlook this intersectionality and its interpretational implications (Crenshaw,

1994; Ostrove & Cole, 2003).


6/12

6

Finally, although objective measures may provide a useful method forassessing a persons objective SES, they fail to assess the personssubjective SES

and social class identity. Hence, objective measures may categorize a person as

being of medium SES and middle-classeven though the person perceiveshimself or herself to be of low SES and working-class. Again, this social

psychological component of SES and social class must be assessed if we

conceptualize these variables as being something more than objective societal

demographics (Ostrove & Cole, 2003).

The New Socio-Psychological Approach to Social Class

In contrast to educational research, recent studies in psychology and

sociology have employed subjective, self-definitional measures of social class andSES alongside more objective measures (e.g., Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, &

Ickovics, 2000; Hamamura, 2012; Horberg, Oveis, Keltner, & Cohen, 2009;

Jetten et al., 2008; Kraus, Cte, & Keltner, 2010; Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009;Kudrna, Furnham, & Swami, 2010; Laurin, Fitzsimons, & Kay, 2011; Ostrove et

al., 2000; Ostrove, & Cole, 2003; for a recent review of further social

psychological research in this area, see Kraus & Stephens, 2012). For example,social psychologists have asked their participants to categorize themselves

according to social class categories such as working-class and upper-class

(Horberg et al., 2009; Jetten et al., 2008, Study 2). Other researchers in health

and social psychology have used the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status(Adler et al., 2000; Adler & Stewart, 2007). Here, participants indicate their

position on a 10-runged social ladder in which higher rungs represent people

who have higher social class or SES. The scale comes in two versions. The first

measures SES based on the respondentsperceptions of income, education, andoccupational prestige in relation to other people in their country. The second

measures social class based on the respondents subjective perceptions of social

standing in their (subjectively defined) community.Consistent with this subjective methodology, social psychologists have

provided an explicit acknowledgement of the subjective component of social class

in their recent definitions. For example, Kraus et al. (2009) explained that socialclass comprises both an individuals material resources and an individuals

perceived rank within the social hierarchy (p. 992). This dualist perspective on

social class fits nicely with Bourdieus(1985, 1987) considerations on social

class. He proposed that the similar objective conditions, or habitus, in which

people from different social classes live, including their differing access to social,cultural, economic, and symbolic capital, gives rise to subjective identities that

embody and reify social classes.The recent increase in the use of subjective measures of social class and

SES in psychology has been noted by the American Psychological Associations


7/12

7

(2006) Task Force on SES, which has recommended that researchers employ bothsubjective and objective measure of SES in their research (Saegert et al., 2006).

In general, however, this recommendation has not been heeded by educational

researchers (for a notable exception, see Ostrove & Long, 2007). In the followingsections, we consider the utility of this dual conceptualization of social class in

educational research. In particular, we focus on the validity, reliability, predictive

power, and contextual-sensitivity of subjective measures of social class and SES.

To be clear, we do not claim that subjective measures are generally superior toobjective measures. We only aim to highlight the relative strengths of subjective

measures on some key dimensions in order to persuade educational researchers to

incorporate bothsubjective andobjective measures in their research.

Are Subjective Measures Valid?A common concern about the validity of subjective social class measures

is that many people do not know what category of social class they belong to.This concern is unfounded if researchers employ meaningful response categories.

For example, a recent nationally-representative USA survey found that more than

98% of respondents were able to self-identify as either upper class(2%),upper-middle class(15%), middle class(49%), lower-middle class(25%),

or lower class(7%; Morin & Motel, 2012; see also Ostrove & Long, 2007).

A further concern is that most people will describe themselves as middle-

class. Although this was the casein the USA survey (i.e., 89% categorizedthemselves as either upper-middle class, middle class, or lower middle-

class), the expansion of the middle-class category into meaningful subcategories

can enhance the discriminatory power of such measures.

A further potential threat to the validity of subjective social class measuresis that such measures may be influenced by peoples mood or affect. However,

contrary to this possibility, experimentally manipulating mood does not alter

peoples ratings of their subjective social class (Kraus, Adler, & Chen, 2013; for adiscussion, see Kraus, Tan, & Tannenbaum, 2013).

Subjective measures also provide valid assessments of social class and

SES if these variables are conceived as social identities that are derived frommembership in socially-defined groups (e.g., Jetten et al., 2008; Soria, Stebleton,

& Huesman, 2013; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This subjective conceptualization of

social class and SES is consistent with the use of self-definition in classifying the

ethnicity or indigeneity of people in a range of other settings, including

population censuses and university admission applications. In addition, the use ofsubjective measures to tap the identity component of social class and SES allows

researchers to undertake more sensitive investigations of classism in highereducation (Langhout et al., 2009).


8/12

8

Empirical evidence of convergent validity comes from studies that havefound positive correlations between subjective and objective measures of social

class (e.g., Kraus et al., 2010; Kraus et al., 2009; Ostrove et al., 2000; Ostrove &

Long, 2007). These moderately-sized correlations indicate that subjectivemeasures assess an important aspect of social class but one that is relatively

distinct from objective aspects. Consistent with this assumption, subjective

measures have been shown to uniquely predict self-rated global health even after

controlling for objective measures (Adler et al., 2000). Indeed, this approach ofcontrolling for the objective aspect of social class and SES in order to examine the

independent effects of subjective social class can more accurately capture the

unique aspects of social class that are not captured by objective indicators.

Are Subjective Measures Reliable and Predictive?There are reasons to believe that subjective measures of social class

provide morereliable and predictive assessments than objective measures,especially in educational research. Subjective measures relate to students rather

than to their parents, and so they provide more proximal and accurate

representations of students' social class. Consequently, they are likely to be moresensitive to changes in students' social class over time. It is perhaps for these

reasons that subjective measures are stronger predictors than objective measures

in the field of higher education (Ostrove & Long, 2007) and act as better

predictors of health outcomes (e.g., Ostrove et al., 2000; for brief reviews, seeKraus et al., 2009, p. 993; Kudrna et al., 2010, p. 860).

Are Subjective Measures Context-Sensitive?

As we have argued above, social class and SES need to be consideredwithin the context of the broader social, economic and political context (Jones &

Vagle, 2013). Subjective measures are better placed to accomplish this goal than

objective measures because they have an intrinsic capacity to assess social class ina contextualized manner. Unlike objective measures, subjective measures do not

require pre-established benchmarks against which to interpret different levels of

social class or SES (e.g., cut-offs for family income). Instead, respondents areable to reflect on their own internalized standards based on their individual,

context-specific experiences and reference groups. This does not mean that the

interpretation of subjective measures can be undertaken independently from the

local contexts and time periods within which they are employed. On the contrary,

all measures of social class must be interpreted in a contextual manner. However,the inbuilt context-sensitivity of subjective measures does provide a greater

potential for comparisons between different groups, situations, contexts, andcultures (e.g., Hamamura, 2012). In particular, researchers can manipulate the

frame of reference within which respondents make their judgments in order to


9/12

9

facilitate relevant comparisons. For example, participants can be instructed toconsider their social class or SES relative to others in their countryor others in

their university(cf. Adler & Stewart, 2007; Kraus et al., 2009). Similarly,

comparisons can be made between the subjective family income (e.g., low,medium, high) of traditional- and nontraditional-aged students who are asked

to make their judgments in the context of other students of your age. Unlike

objective measures, this contextual flexibility of subjective measures allows them

to accommodate the intersection of social class and SES with other demographicssuch as gender, age, ethnicity, and regionality (Crenshaw, 1994; Ostrove & Cole,

2003).

Implications and ConclusionsWorldwide, universities are striving to provide a curriculum and student

services that support expanding and diverse participation and the needs of a 21st

century knowledge economy. In order to maintain its relevance, the educationalresearch community needs to provide robust and informative research that

accurately defines, describes, and communicates the increasingly diverse

demography, experiences, and outcomes of university students. In this review,we have argued that studentssubjectively self-defined perceptions of their social

class and SES are vital ingredients in this type of research. Specifically, we have

argued that, relative to objective measures, subjective measures of social class and

SES:

provide more direct assessments that relate to studentsself-definition ratherthan the characteristics of studentsparents;

can be interpreted without reference to objective standards that are constrainedto particular contexts and time-periods;

result in less missing data; are more sensitive to changes in social class and SES; assess the identity component of social class and SES; have proven convergent validity with objective measures; are stronger predictors of some outcome variables; afford greater potential for comparisons between different situations and

contexts; and

enable a conceptualization of social class as an intersectional construct.Again, to be clear, we are not proposing that subjective measures of social

class and SES should replaceobjective measures. Instead, we are suggesting thatresearchers in higher education should habitually supplement their objective

measures with subjective measures in order to provide a more nuanced,articulated, and comprehensive assessment of these complex, context-dependent

variables. More generally, this approach will give a clearer voice to students

subjective experiences in higher education.


10/12

10

ReferencesAdler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of

subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological

functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women.Health Psychology,19, 586-592. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586

Alder, N. E., & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social

Status.Retrieved from

http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.phpBourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and

society, 14,723-744. doi: 10.1007/BF00174048

Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical

existence of groups.Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32,1-17.Crenshaw, K. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,

and violence against women of color. In M. A. Fineman, & R. Mykitiuk

(Eds.), The public nature of private violence(pp. 93118). New York:Routledge.

Devlin, M. (2013). Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: Conceptualising the

success of students from low socio-economic backgrounds in Australianhigher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 939-949. doi:

10.1080/03075079.2011.613991

Hamamura, T. (2012). Social class predicts generalized trust but only in wealthy

societies.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 498-509. doi:10.1177/0022022111399649

Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the

moralization of purity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97,

963-976. doi: 10.1037/a0017423James, R. (2008)Participation and equity: A review of the participation in higher

education of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous

people. Melbourne: Melbourne Graduate School of Education andUniversities Australia.

Jetten, J., Iyer, A., Tsivrikos, D., & Young, B. M. (2008). When is individual

mobility costly? The role of economic and social identity factors.European Journal of Social Psychology, 38,866-879. doi:

10.1002/ejsp.471

Jones, S., & Vagle, M. D. (2013). Living contradictions and working for change

toward a theory of social classsensitive pedagogy.Educational

Researcher, 42,129-141. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13481381Krause, M. W., Adler, N., & Chen, T. D. (2013). Is the association of subjective

SES and self-rated health confounded by negative mood? An experimentalapproach.Health Psychology, 32, 138-145. doi: 10.1037/a0027343
http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.phphttp://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.phphttp://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.php


11/12

11

Kraus, M. W., Cte, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, andempathic accuracy.Psychological Science, 21,1716-1723. doi:

10.1177/0956797610387613

Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, andsocial explanation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97,992-

1004. doi: 10.1037/a0016357

Kraus, M. W., & Stephens, N. W (2012). A road map for an emerging psychology

of social class. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6/9,642656. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x

Krause, M. W., Tan, J. J. X., & Tannenbaum, M. B. (2013). The social ladder: A

rank-based perspective on social class.Psychological Inquiry: An

International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 24,81-96. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2013.778803

Kudrna, L., Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2010). The influence of social class

salience on self-assessed intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality,38, 859-864. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.861

Langhout, R. D., Drake, P., & Rosselli, F. (2009). Classism in the university

setting: Examining student antecedents and outcomes.Journal of Diversityin Higher Education, 2, 166-181. doi: 10.1037/a0016209

Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Social disadvantage and the

self-regulatory function of justice beliefs.Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 100,149-171. doi: 10.1037/a0021343Maras, P. (2007). But no one in my family has been to university Aiming

higher: School students attitudes to higher education. The Australian

Educational Researcher, 34,69-90. doi: 10.1007/BF03216866

Morin, R., & Motel, S. (2012). A third of Americans now say they are in thelower classes.Pew Social and Demographic Trends,1-16. Retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/09/the-lower-classes-final.pdf

Ostrove, J. M., Adler, N. E., Kuppermann, M., & Washington, A. E. (2000).Objective and subjective assessments of socioeconomic status and their

relationship to self-rated health in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant

women.Health Psychology, 19,613-618. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.613

Ostrove, J. M., & Cole, E. R. (2003). Privileging class: Toward a critical

psychology of social class in the context of education.Journal of Social

Issues, 59,677-692. doi: 10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00084.x

Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implicationsfor college adjustment.Review of Higher Education, 30,363-389.

Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for futureresearch.Journal of College Student Development, 47, 508-520. doi:

10.1353/csd.2006.0060
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/09/the-lower-classes-final.pdfhttp://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/09/the-lower-classes-final.pdfhttp://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/09/the-lower-classes-final.pdf


12/12

12

Robbins, S. B., Le, H., Davis, D., Lauver, K., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A.(2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes?

A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 130,261-288. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261Rubin, M. (2012a). Social class differences in social integration among students

in higher education: A meta-analysis and recommendations for future

research.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 22-38. doi:

10.1037/a0026162Rubin, M. (2012b). Working-class students need more friends at university: A

cautionary note for Australias higher education equity initiative.Higher

Education Research and Development, 31,431-433. doi:

10.1080/07294360.2012.689246Saegert, S. C., Adler, N. E., Bullock, H. E., Cauce, A. M., Liu, W. M., & Wyche,

K. F. (2006).APA Task Force on socioeconomic status (SES).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved fromhttp://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/

APA%202006%20task%20force%20on%20SES.pdf

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research.Review of Educational Research, 75, 417-453.

doi: 10.3102/00346543075003417

Soria, K. M., Stebleton, M. J., & Huesman, R. L. (2013). Class counts: Exploring

differences in academic and social integration between working-class andmiddle/upper-class students at large, public research universities.Journal

of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 15, 215-

242. doi: 10.2190/CS.15.2.e

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & 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. doi: 10.1037/a0027143

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In

S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergrouprelations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

York-Anderson, D. C., & Bowman, S. L. (1991). Assessing the college

knowledge of first-generation and second-generation college students.

Journal of College Student Development, 32, 116-122.
http://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/APA%202006%20task%20force%20on%20SES.pdfhttp://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/APA%202006%20task%20force%20on%20SES.pdfhttp://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/APA%202006%20task%20force%20on%20SES.pdfhttp://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/APA%202006%20task%20force%20on%20SES.pdfhttp://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/APA%202006%20task%20force%20on%20SES.pdf

“i am working-class”: subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and...

Documents