Cited by 45Intergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesSocial Power and Status DynamicsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Occupational Prestige: The Status Component of Socioeconomic Status

Open access
Hughes, Bradley T., Srivastava, Sanjay, Leszko, Magdalena, Condon, David M.·2024·Collabra: Psychology

Abstract

The relationship between life outcomes and an individual’s standing in the social and economic hierarchy of society is an important topic across the social sciences. Foundational to this work is assessing an individual’s standing in this hierarchy, often referred to as socioeconomic status (SES). One component of an individual’s SES, often overlooked in the psychological literature, is occupational prestige – the amount of status accorded to them based on their occupational role. In this research, we collected and validated a new index of occupational prestige for 1029 specific occupations, including all jobs in the US Department of Labor’s O*NET database, and 22 broader occupational families. In Study 1, we collected a comprehensive set of occupational prestige ratings from an online convenience sample, and demonstrated their high reliability. In Study 2, we developed a crosswalk between the ratings collected in Study 1 and prior ratings of occupations listed in the US Census and show convergent validity with previous indices. In Studies 3 and 4 we used additional data to evaluate the construct validity of occupational prestige more broadly. In Study 3, we established convergent and discriminant validity with other indicators of SES: income and educational attainment. In Study 4, we use the O*NET database to identify the characteristics of occupations most strongly associated with prestige. These results support the validity of the index and suggest occupations with high prestige require skills traditionally emphasized in liberal arts education (e.g., critical thinking, reading comprehension).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/collabra.92882

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A comment attributed to a street vendor produced a measurably different summary than the same comment attributed to a financial analyst.

    “A comment attributed to a street vendor produced a measurably different summary than the same comment attributed to a financial analyst [41, 42].”

    From All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs? (2026) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Conclusion table reports a prestige rating for street vendors, but it does not examine comments or summaries. Searches for the street-vendor/financial-analyst comparison and for summaries attributed to different occupations found no passage reporting the claimed difference. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Occupations were deliberately selected with no obvious connection to environmental regulation, yet differential treatment persisted.

    “We deliberately selected occupations with no obvious connection to environmental regulation [42], yet differential treatment persisted.”

    From All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs? (2026) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Procedure section describes collecting occupational-prestige ratings, not selecting occupations for an environmental-regulation study. The passages found for “environmental regulation” and the claimed selection criterion do not address whether those occupations were deliberately chosen for their lack of connection to regulation or whether differential treatment persisted. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Duncan, O. D. (1961). "A socioeconomic index for all occupations," in Occupations and Social Status, eds A. J. Reiss Jr., O. D. Duncan, P. K. Hatt, and C. C. North (New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe), 109-138.
  2. Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1990). Computing 1989 occupational prestige scores (Vol. 70, pp. 1-27). Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, B. T., Srivastava, S., Leszko, M., & Condon, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • University of Szczecin (PL)
Venue
Collabra: Psychology
Published
2024
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
2474-7394 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392840543
Cited by
44
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4
FWCI
28.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Collabra Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Oregon
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
occupational prestige, socioeconomic status, occupational status, social hierarchy, construct validity, convergent validity, income, educational attainment, critical thinking, reading comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review