What does “occupation” represent as an indicator of socioeconomic status?: Exploring occupational prestige and health
Introduction
The impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on health has been an important topic for public health research in the last several decades (Adler and Rehkopf, 2008, Curtiss and Grahn, 1980, Kaplan and Keil, 1993, MacIntyre, 1997). By now it is well-established that those with higher SES have better health (Adler and Newman, 2002, Evans and Kantrowitz, 2002, Kivimäki et al., 2007, Lemelin et al., 2009). Various mechanisms linking SES and health have been proposed, such as material deprivation (Benach, Yasui, Borrell, Sáez, & Pasarin, 2001), a sense of personal control and mastery (Taylor & Seeman, 2006), stress (Dressler, Oths, & Gravlee, 2005), and the quality of healthcare (van Ryn & Burke, 2000). These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and most likely work simultaneously.
SES is partly determined by individuals’ occupation (MacIntyre, 1997), which reflects their educational level, provides income, and signals their social standing. However, the association between health and occupation is complex because occupation can be a source of both health-enhancing factors (e.g., self-affirmation) and harmful exposure (e.g., stress) (Adler & Newman, 2002). To explore the role of occupation as a determinant of health, we examine occupational prestige, an aspect of occupation that has been rarely discussed in scholarship on health. Occupational prestige represents the perception of a job’s social status (MacKinnon & Langford, 1994). Unlike other SES measures (e.g., income, education), which represent individuals’ material and human resources and only imply their social status, occupational prestige directly measures the social standing of the job and job holder (Nakao & Treas, 1994). Using US national data, we investigate whether occupational prestige explains self-rated health status beyond the effects of other SES measures and job-related health determinants.
Occupation has been used, mainly in European countries, as a marker of social stratification (Krieger, Williams, & Moss, 1997). Most notably, the British Registrar General’s social schema, a five-level categorization system, was used in the Whitehall studies to show strong health gradients among British civil servants (Marmot et al., 1991). In contrast, researchers in the US have rarely used occupation as an SES indicator (Barbeau et al., 2004, Braveman et al., 2005, MacDonald et al., 2009). Some argue that occupation merely represents the education required for the job and earning potential (Nam & Boyd, 2004); thus, if information on income and education is available, occupation is not needed. However, some US studies have found occupational gradients in health beyond the effects of income and education (e.g.,Barbeau et al., 2004, Fujishiro et al., 2010).
A more common approach to occupation in the US is to link specific occupations to specific health conditions. For example, material handlers and car mechanics have a high likelihood of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (Hnizdo, Sullivan, Bang, & Wagner, 2002). The underlying assumption is that certain jobs expose individuals to specific health hazards. It is generally true that workers in hazardous jobs (e.g., construction workers, chemical plant workers) tend to have lower income and education levels, and therefore are classified lower in the socioeconomic hierarchy than those in less hazardous jobs (e.g., accountants, librarians). One could argue that high likelihood of occupational hazard exposure is part of low SES. This approach is useful in studying specific health conditions (e.g., COPD) with known causal factors (e.g., chemical fumes, dusts). However, to examine health and occupation as an SES indicator, researchers must consider occupation as more than simply a source of hazard exposure (Adler & Newman, 2002).
When occupation is included in health research as an SES indicator, the US Census categories (e.g., managerial, professional, clerical, service, blue-collar) are commonly used (Kaplan & Keil, 1993). Braveman et al. (2005) point out that the census categories are “not intended—and do not appear to be meaningful—as SES measures” (p. 2883). In fact, using the National Longitudinal Mortality Study data, Gregorio, Walsh, and Paturzo (1997) demonstrated that there was no linear trend in all-cause mortality risk across the Census occupational categories (e.g., the relative risk of mortality for managerial/professional occupations did not differ from farming occupations). Because it is unclear as to what occupational categories represent, researchers have difficulty understanding what mechanisms cause differences in health status among these categories.
Since occupational categories have ambiguous meanings as an SES indicator (Adler and Newman, 2002, Braveman et al., 2005), a more precise conceptualization of occupation is needed as we investigate the association between SES and health. We propose that occupational prestige, an innate component of occupation, reflects a unique aspect of SES not directly represented by occupational categories, income, or education. Specifically, we argue that occupational prestige explicitly represents the social status afforded by a particular occupation.
SES is an individual’s position within the social structure, which determines his or her available resources (Lynch and Kaplan, 2000, Oakes and Rossi, 2003). Krieger et al. (1997) distinguish two aspects of SES: “(a) actual resources, and (b) status, meaning privilege- or rank-based characteristics” (p. 246). Actual resources are ones an individual already has, such as education, material wealth, and social support. Status, on the other hand, concerns potential availability of resources when needs arise. The higher the social status, the more access to potential resources. High status may be achieved through high income and education, but this status is only inferred but not explicitly measured. In contrast, occupational prestige is an explicit indicator of social status (Nakao & Treas, 1994).
Occupational prestige represents a collective, subjective consensus on occupational status (Xu & Leffler, 1992); that is, it indicates how members of a community collectively evaluate the social standing of a job. Occupational prestige is a measure of power, according to Donald Treiman, who observed a remarkable consistency in occupational prestige ranking across social contexts. To explain the consistency, Treiman (1976) reasons: “Since occupations are differentiated with respect to power, they will in turn be differentiated with respect to privilege and prestige” (p. 289). Being able to access and control resources is part of the definition of having power (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993). Thus, occupational prestige reflects the status aspect of SES, based on the differential distribution of power inherent in occupations, which then results in disparities in access to health-enhancing resources.
Holding a prestigious job may provide health benefits in various ways. First, high-prestige jobs may enhance the job holder’s self-esteem (Faunce, 1989), which is associated with high job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001). High self-esteem and job satisfaction are both health-promoting factors (Faragher et al., 2005, Mann et al., 2004). In addition, high-prestige job holders may have more positive social interactions than low-prestige job holders (Matthews et al., 2000). Previous studies reported that prestige assessment reflects the raters’ deference to the job (Wegener, 1992), positive social sentiments (e.g., moral worthiness, usefulness) associated with the job (MacKinnon & Langford, 1994), and the job’s value to the society (Goyder, 2009). Because occupational prestige is how others see the job, the quality of social interaction the job holder experiences would be influenced by the prestige of the job. Large bodies of literature have documented that the quality of social interaction is an important determinant of health (e.g., Uchino et al., 1996, Williams et al., 2003).
Despite these suggestive associations, the current literature provides few direct investigations of the association between occupational prestige and health. To the best of our knowledge, only two studies have examined occupational prestige, but their findings are not consistent. One study (von dem Knesebeck, Luschen, Cockerham, & Siegrist, 2003) did not find any association between occupational prestige and self-rated health. The prestige score was trichotomized in the study, which might have contributed to the null result. The Framingham Offspring Study (Eaker, Sullivan, Kelly-Hayes, D’Agostino, & Benjamin, 2004) found a significant association between occupational prestige and coronary heart disease only among men, but not among women.
In this study, we investigate occupational prestige by distinguishing it from other aspects of occupation (i.e., occupational categories, and job characteristics) and other SES indicators. Using US national survey data, we examine the following research question: to what extent is occupational prestige associated with self-rated health independent from other SES indicators (education, income), occupational categories, and previously identified job-related health determinants (job stress, workplace social support, and job satisfaction)?
Section snippets
Data
This study uses data of selected years (2002 and 2006) from the General Social Survey (GSS). The GSS is a nationally representative, repeated cross-sectional survey that has been fielded by the National Opinion Research Center. From 1972 to 1994, data were collected every year; and since 1994, GSS has collected information biannually from sampled non-institutionalized Americans 18 years old and older. In collaboration with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the GSS in
Results
Table 1 summarizes the sample characteristics. Overall, 12% reported having fair or poor health. The respondents had an average age of 41 years (range from 18 to 88 years). Slightly over a half were women (52%). About three quarters of the respondents were whites, and 15% African American. These proportions are similar to the white-African American ratio in the general working population. However, Hispanics were underrepresented in our sample (5%) compared to the general working population
Discussion
A major finding of our study is that higher occupational prestige was significantly associated with better self-rated health when we controlled for other commonly used SES indicators (income and education), occupational categories, and job-related health determinants (workplace social support, job strain, and job satisfaction). Occupational categories, when used in epidemiologic studies, are traditionally considered as an SES indicator. In our study, we did see some occupational gradient in
Conclusion
When occupation is considered in research on SES and health, its meaning is often ambiguous because occupation can reflect both health-enhancing resources and health-damaging exposures. This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating the significant association of occupational prestige with health. We propose that occupational prestige captures a unique aspect of SES by explicitly reflecting social standing afforded by one’s occupation. Higher occupational prestige was significantly
Disclaimer
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
References (62)
The black report and beyond: what are the issues?
Social Science & Medicine
(1997)- et al.
Contribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence
Lancet
(1997) - et al.
Health inequalities among British civil-servants: the Whitehall II Study
Lancet
(1991) - et al.
The measurement of SES in health research: current practice and steps toward a new approach
Social Science & Medicine
(2003) - et al.
The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians’ perceptions of patients
Social Science & Medicine
(2000) Cognitive abilities and self-rated health: Is there a relationship? Is it growing? Does it explain disparities?
Social Science Research
(2005)- et al.
The resource generator: social capital quantification with concrete items
Social Networks
(2005) - et al.
Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies
Health Affairs
(2002) - et al.
U.S. disparities in health: descriptions, causes, and mechanisms
Annual Review of Public Health
(2008) - et al.
Working class matters: socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender, and smoking in NHIS 2000
American Journal of Public Health
(2004)
Psychosocial factors: review of the empirical data among men
Occupational Medicine
Is job strain a major source of cardiovascular disease risk?
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health
Material deprivation and leading causes of death by gender: evidence from a nationwide small area study
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Socioeconomic status in health research - One size does not fit all
JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association
Employed persons by occupation, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and sex
Population characteristics and environmental factors that influence level and cause of mortality: a review
Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology
Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: a meta-analysis
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Race and ethnicity in public health research: models to explain health disparities
Annual Review of Anthropology
Does job strain increase the risk for coronary heart disease or death in men and women? The Framingham Offspring Study
American Journal of Epidemiology
Work-related psychosocial factors and the development of ischemic heart disease: a systematic review
Cardiology in Review
Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure
Annual Review of Public Health
Psychosocial factors and cardiovascular diseases
Annual Review of Public Health
The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis
Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Occupational status-assignment systems: the effect of status on self esteem
American Journal of Sociology
Associations of occupation, job control, job demands, and intima-media thickness: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)
Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Beyond the looking-glass self: social structure and efficacy-based self-esteem
Social Psychology Quarterly
The prestige squeeze
The effects of occupation-based social position on mortality in a large American cohort
American Journal of Public Health
Association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and employment by industry and occupation in the US population: a study of data from the third national health and nutrition examination survey
American Journal of Epidemiology
Power, social influence, and sense making: effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions
Administrative Science Quarterly
Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
Cited by (140)
On the origin of cognition: How childhood conditions shape cognitive function in old age
2024, China Economic ReviewFamily size, labor supply, and job prestige: Evidence from three decennial censuses in China
2023, China Economic ReviewTowards understanding and mitigating unintended biases in language model-driven conversational recommendation
2023, Information Processing and ManagementOccupational status and life satisfaction in the UK: The miserable middle?
2022, Journal of Economic Behavior and OrganizationCitation Excerpt :An early contribution along these lines is Weaver (1977), who looks at 1974 General Social Survey (GSS) data in the US to ask how an occupational-prestige scale contributes to the relationship between occupation and job satisfaction. Fujishiro et al. (2010) also analyse GSS data, using information from the 2002 and 2006 waves to show that occupational prestige is associated with better self-rated health, even conditional on job strain, workplace social support and job satisfaction. With respect to life satisfaction, Clark and D'Angelo (2016) consider the relationship between occupational status and life satisfaction in BHPS data, focusing on the comparison of the respondent's own status to that of their parents.1
Professions, honesty, and income
2022, Current Opinion in Psychology