Suchergebnisse

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a complex and multidimensional construct, encompassing both independent objective characteristics (e.g., income or education) and subjective people's ratings of their placement in the socioeconomic spectrum. Within the growing literature on subjective SES belongingness and psychological well-being, subjective indices of SES have tended to center on the use of pictorial rank-related social ladders where individuals place themselves relative to others by simultaneously considering their income, educational level, and occupation. This approach, albeit consistent with the idea of these social ladders as summative or cognitive SES markers, might potentially constrain individuals' conceptions of their SES. This research (N = 368; Mage = 39.67, SD = 13.40) is intended to expand prior investigations on SES and psychological well-being by revisiting the role of subjective SES. In particular, it (a) proposes an innovative adaptation of the traditional MacArthur Scale of subjective SES to income, education, and occupation, thus resulting in three separate social ladders; and (b) tests the empirical contribution of such three social ladders to psychological well-being. Overall, our findings showed that the novel education and occupation ladders (excluding the income ladder) are predictive of a significant part of the variance levels of psychological well-being that is not due to canonical objective metrics of SES (i.e., income, education, and occupation), or to the conventional MacArthur Scale of subjective SES. Although preliminary, these results underscore the need to further reconsider (subjective) SES-related conceptualization and measurement strategies to gather a more comprehensive understanding of the SES-psychological well-being link. ; Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness for the R&D project "Macrosocial realities (economic crisis and social class) and psychosocial processes: Trust, welfare, altruism, and politics" PSI-2017-83966-R

Examines the hypothesized inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and conservatism on a wide range of so-called social issues by looking at the net effects of education, occupation, income, and class on 9 issues. (Abstract amended)

The frequency of the experience of particular emotions can be considered a measure of subjective well-being and therefore an indicator of the quality of life in the overall population. Key approaches to the sociology of emotions provide the theoretical background to this study. On the basis of Swiss Household Panel (SHP) data for the years 2005-2011, a random effects regression assessed relationships between the frequency of negative emotions (desperation, anxiety and depression) and the parameters of individual socioeconomic status. The results suggest that negative emotions are experienced differently along status- and resource-based predictors such as education, income and occupational status. These associations persist when controlling for key variables of mental health and stress research such as critical life events, chronic stressors and social resources.

AbstractElite colleges have long been associated with socioeconomic reproduction, passing along elite social standing to children of middle and upper‐middle socioeconomic status (SES) parents. How has that role changed during the expansion of American higher education over the past 50 years? Have elite colleges and universities also become providers of socioeconomic mobility? In this essay, I outline recent demographic, admissions, and financial aid changes at these institutions and compare both in‐college experiences and college outcomes between low‐SES and more‐affluent students at elite colleges. I argue that although elite colleges and universities do include greater numbers of low‐SES students than in earlier generations and have great potential for even further inclusion, they remain far from serving as broad engines of socioeconomic mobility.

While the European Union (EU) increasingly strengthens its social integration, opposition towards this process can also be observed, here defined as 'welfare Euroscepticism'. To better understand this newly defined policy paradigm, this article aims to explain longstanding cleavages in both social policy and EU research: socioeconomic status (SES) divides. Contrary to the literature on public support for European integration, this article argues that higher SES groups are more likely to be welfare Eurosceptics than lower SES groups. This argument and its underlying explanations are examined through a multilevel approach using European Social Survey data from 18 EU member states, using the example of a potential EU-wide minimum income scheme. First, the results demonstrate that welfare Euroscepticism is indeed more prevalent among higher SES groups than lower SES groups (measured through occupation, education, income, and employment). The results indicate robust self-interest patterns among higher SES groups that do not want to carry (perceived) financial burdens of EU social policies. The opinion patterns also emphasize the multidimensionality of attitudes towards EU policies since the SES cleavages can reverse, depending on the policy in focus. Overall, the results indicate much potential to mobilize the larger proportion of the public to support EU social policies, that is, lower SES groups. However, potential conflicts may arise when the EU expands on policies that their traditional supporters – higher SES groups – are more likely to oppose. The article also shows that welfare solidarity on the individual and the country level can mitigate such conflicts. This is because higher levels of welfare generosity and lower levels of welfare chauvinism on the individual and the country level are related to smaller SES cleavages.

Traditionally, middle-and-upper-class groups are able to actualize their political interests as a result of their financial leverage, whereas low socioeconomic and socially disadvantaged groups often lack the financial resources and time to support their political interests. Government and law enforcement intervention in recent social movements raises the question of how socially disadvantaged groups can actualize political goals if the government violates the First Amendment.

This brief shall focus upon protest politics in the most recent years like the famous protests against the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement as well as examples from today like the protest against stricter immigration laws and a 700-mile fence between the Mexican and American border and how exactly members from different socioeconomic backgrounds participated in these demonstrations.