1. Jeremiah Coldsmith University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
What Leads to Differential Class Identity? Exploring the Micro Foundations of Working Class and Middle Class Identity.
Jeremiah Coldsmith
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Presented at the 2014 How Class Works Conference, SUNY Stony Brook

2. Class and Identity: Recent Studies
Three tracks of identity and class research: 1) Class as a mediating or interacting independent variable for other identities such as gender or race. 2) Divergence between subjective class identity and objective class position and the impact of such divergence on various outcomes such as voting. 3) Ethnographic case studies of cross-class interactions.

3. Structural Symbolic Interactionism and Identity
Primacy of Social Structures – Because people are born into existing social systems, social structures are theorized to impact individuals prior to individuals impacting social structures. Roles – The behavioral and attitudinal expectations associated with a particular social position in a given social context and are relational in nature. Self – The definitional image an individual has of oneself as an object from the perspective of others. This process occurs through comparison to socially recognized categories and roles. Identity – The “internalized positional designations” that make up the self.

4. Social Structures and Class Identity
In what social contexts are class identities most likely to be salient? Marx: Places of Production or Work Environments Weber: Market Situations or Exchange Relations

5. Social Structures and Class Identity
What structures these social contexts? Work environments are structured by the relations of production. Authority, Autonomy, and Skills Market situations and exchange relations are structured by both class and status characteristics. Ascribed Status Characteristics such as Gender, Race, and Age Achieved Status Characteristics such as Education Level, Income, and Occupational Status

6. Data
Erik Olin Wright’s 1986 Class Structure and Class Consciousness: Merged Multi-national File housed at ICPSR. The analysis is limited to 912 Americans in the workforce with complete data who identified as working class or middle class.

7. Dependent Variable
Class Identity – based on three questions on the survey. First, “Do you think of yourself as belonging to a particular social class?” The 43% who identified with a class without being prompted were then asked what class they identified with. These respondents are considered to have a strong class identity. Then, for those who answered “no” to the first question, a forced choice question was then asked. All but 2 of the remaining 57% made a choice after being prompted. These respondents are considered to have a weak class identity.

8. Dependent Variable Table 1: Frequency of Class Identities
Strong Class Identities
Frequency
Percent
Weak Class Identities
Lower Class/Poor 12
2.2%
Working Class 38
6.8%
326
41.5%
Lower Middle Class/Working Middle Class 29
5.2% 5
.6%
Middle Class
369
66.2%
367
46.7%
Upper Middle Class 98
17.6% 86
10.9%
Upper Class/Rich 11 2%
Other 2
.3%
Total
557
100%
786

9. Table 2: Binary Logistic Regression of Strong Class Identity
Working Class vs. Middle Class
Variable Name
Coefficient
Standard Error
Two-Tailed p
Percent Change in Odds for a One Unit Change in Variable X
Percent Change in Odds for a one Standard Deviation Change in Variable X
Ascribed Status
Female
.3058
.4748
.520
Black
1.2672*
.5812
.029
71.8 
 26.7
Age
-.0085
.0158
.591
Achieved Status
Family Income
-.0000
.0000
.261
Credentials
-.5183*
.2404
.031
– 67.9 
– 87.7 
DSEI
-.0097
.0116
.401
Class Structure
Autonomy
.1019
.1209
.399
Authority
-.0571
.0883
.518
Other Controls
Union Membership
.5695
.4652
.221
Urban Resident
.1549
.5939
.794
pseudo r2 = .112
n = 345
†Statistically significant at the .05 level one-tailed. * Statistically significant at the .05 level two-tailed.
** Statistically significant at the .01 level two-tailed. *** Statistically significant at the .001 level two-tailed.
Notes: Constants not shown.
Coefficients and percent change in odds have been recorded such that positive coefficients and percentages indicate a higher odds of associating with the working class, and negative coefficients and percentages indicate a higher odds of associating with the middle class.

10. Table 3: Binary Logistic Regression of Weak Class Identity
Working Class vs. Middle Class
Variable Name
Coefficient
Standard Error
Two-Tailed p
Percent Change in Odds for a One Unit Change in Variable X
Percent Change in Odds for a one Standard Deviation Change in Variable X
Ascribed Status
Female
.2908
.1855
.117
Black
.4393†
.2609
.092
 35.6
14.2 
Age
-.0030
.0061
.628
Achieved Status
Family Income
-.0000
.0000
.729
Credentials
-.0580
.0944
.539
DSEI
-.0127**
.0046
.005
– 1.3
– 34.5
Class Structure
Autonomy
-.0998*
.0444
.024
– 10.5
– 28.0
Authority
.0394
.0298
.186
Other Controls
Union Membership
.5648**
.1865
.002
43.2
24.4
Urban Resident
-.1625
.3096
.600
pseudo r2 = .058
n = 567
†Statistically significant at the .05 level one-tailed. * Statistically significant at the .05 level two-tailed.
** Statistically significant at the .01 level two-tailed. *** Statistically significant at the .001 level two-tailed.
Notes: Constants not shown.
Coefficients and percent change in odds have been recorded such that positive coefficients and percentages indicate a higher odds of associating with the working class, and negative coefficients and percentages indicate a higher odds of associating with the middle class.

11. Discussion
Empirically: For Americans in the labor force with a strong class identity, their identity is really a status identity because it is derived primarily from status characteristics. For Americans in the labor force with weak class identities, class and status combine to help define the meaning of class.

12. Discussion
Theoretically: Americans do have class identities, and social structures do impact who identifies with which class. However, there are important differences between individuals who hold class identities strongly and those who only weakly hold them. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between individuals with strong and weak class identities because the identities themselves are different. The relative lack of an effect for the class structure may help explain why class based movements and policies are so weak in the US. Those with the strongest class identities have class identities based not on relations of production but on exchange relations; and therefore, class based ideas may not have much resonance to these individuals. Those with weak class identities may be more susceptible to class based ideas but the lack of salience surrounding their class identity may also indicate a lack of salience for class based ideas of all types.