Development and Exploration of the Experiences With Classism Scale

Abstract

The examination of barriers in relation to college students’ vocational choice and development is an important area of research, but the barrier of classism is relatively underexamined. This may be due to the deficiencies in measurement, so we describe herein the development of a new measure, the Experiences with Classism scale (EWCS). The EWCS was developed to extend prior qualitative work that highlighted the need to consider experiences with classism in the lives of undergraduate students. Results provided initial evidence for the usefulness of the EWCS to measure undergraduate students’ experiences with classism at a personal and systemic level. Across two studies, the EWCS was demonstrated to have high internal consistency reliability, to have a stable factor structure consisting of two factors, to correlate as expected with relevant demographic variables, and to fit within a nomological network of convergent and discriminant constructs. The EWCS was also demonstrated to predict self-reported experiences of depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, and psychological wellness. Implications for further research and practice are suggested.

Keywords

social class classism experiences with classism contextual barriers career development

A key consideration in theories of and research in vocational psychology is how barriers impact an individual’s vocational process and outcomes. Those barriers may be intrapersonal, interpersonal, or contextual (Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996). Social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000) has been recognized as one of the first vocational theories to articulate explicitly how distal and proximal contextual barriers (and supports) function to shape individuals’ interests, goals, and actions. Indeed, SCCT’s “explicit attention to the roles of environmental and other contextual variables that can support or hinder” persons has been recognized as a major strength of the theory (Gainor, 2006, p. 162).

In 2000, Lent, Brown, and Hackett elaborated the roles of contextual barriers and supports in the context of their theory. They summarized the extant (mostly descriptive) literature on barriers and offered a more specific temporal model for how personal and societal barriers might impact persons’ decisions and actions. Given the proliferation of empirical research on the role and functioning of barriers within SCCT, in 2010, a meta-analytic path analysis was carried out and the results were consistent with the premise that supports and barriers have direct and indirect effects on occupational choice goals (Sheu et al., 2010).

To date, theory and research in vocational psychology have focused extensively on barriers related to gender (e.g., Betz, 2005) and race/ethnicity (e.g., Worthington, Flores, & Navarro, 2005), but less attention has been paid to other barriers, including those related to social status or socioeconomic status (SES). Blustein’s (2006) psychology of working perspective and his related research agenda is a notable exception to this oversight as he and his colleagues have worked diligently to extend the explanatory power of vocational theories and research to the experiences of an audience beyond middle- and upper-class college-bound youth. A few other vocational scholars have begun to attend to social class and classism in empirical research (e.g., Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005; Metz, Fouad, & Ihle-Helledy, 2009; Navarro, Flores, & Worthington, 2007; Thompson & Subich, 2006, 2011), and in a recent conceptual article, Diemer and Ali (2009) reviewed evidence to support the inclusion of social class and classism as central constructs in vocational development. They pointed to the relative dearth of vocational literature that centralizes class-related constructs and called for increased attention to the interrelated constructs of social class, social status, SES, and classism.

Why so Little Research on Social Class and Classism?

The relative paucity of vocational research addressing social class and classism may be partly a function of inadequate measurement tools. Indeed, Lent et al. concluded in 2000 that the vocational choice literature would be improved if barriers were assessed in a manner specific to the focus of individual research projects, and they called for more research on persons embedded in specific ecological contexts such as those defined by race, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Perhaps, these suggestions have been heeded more so in some domains (i.e., racism and sexism) than in others (i.e., classism) because well-accepted measures of racism (e.g., schedule of racist events [SRE] by Landrine & Klonoff, 1996) and sexism (e.g., the schedule of sexist events [SSE] by Klonoff & Landrine, 1995) exist, but measures of classism are less well developed.

This deficiency in measurement is perhaps not surprising, given that consideration of classism as a construct in psychological research occurred relatively recently and limited empirical literature on the role and impact of classism in any context (not just vocational) exists (Liu et al., 2004; Ostrove & Cole, 2003). Consequently, authors (e.g., Diemer & Ali, 2009; Ostrove & Cole, 2003; Smith, 2005) have called for greater attention to this variable. For example, in their call for a critical psychology of social class, Ostrove and Cole noted the need to attend to discrimination as a result of social class standing (or classism). In response, authors have attempted to delineate the nature of classism and mechanisms of its operation. Smith highlighted the role of oppression in her definition of classism as “. . . prejudice plus power: It is an interlocking system that involves domination and control of social ideology, institutions, and resources, resulting in a condition of privilege for one group relative to the disenfranchisement of another” (p. 688). She contended that although classism can be experienced by individuals at the high and low end of the stratification hierarchy, only dominant groups in society have the cultural and institutional power to enforce prejudices via oppression.

In his conceptualization of the social class worldview model (SCWM; Liu, 2001), Liu et al. made the case for considering the subjective experience of social class, thereby calling for a psychological study of social class that has been informed by psychological research on race and racism. He conceptualized classism as “prejudice and discrimination based on social class resulting from individuals from different perceived social classes” (Liu, p. 137). Similarly, Williams (2009) called for research that explicitly connects a person’s social class identity with experiences of discrimination resulting from that identity, much the same as sex is connected to sexism and race to racism.

The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to present the development of a new measure of classism, the Experiences With Classism scale (EWCS) questionnaire, which is rooted in the everyday prejudice literature (e.g., Feagin, 1991; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). This literature references the routine encounters with prejudice and discrimination that stigmatized group members (e.g., women and non-European American individuals in the United States) face in their daily interactions (Feagin, 1991; Swim et al., 1998; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). College students have been the focus of much of this work and everyday experiences with prejudice have been demonstrated to relate to outcomes such as decreased well-being and self-esteem and increased anxiety and depression (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001). Rooting the development of the EWCS in this literature offers a mechanism by which to begin to examine individuals’ experiences with discrimination resulting from social class.

Experiences With Classism During College

One such everyday context in which classism occurs is college. Indeed, much of the existing research on classism has relied upon college samples, and researchers (e.g., Langhout, Rosselli, & Feinstein, 2007; Ostrove & Long, 2007) have argued for the relevance of this work, given that college serves as a springboard to future educational and occupational pursuits and represents a transition time during which individuals begin to internalize their identity and have contact with individuals from differing backgrounds. Indeed, Langhout, Rosselli, and Feinstein (2007) asserted that

… examining issues of class during these transitional phases is especially important because social class can become more salient when people are around others from different social class backgrounds (Jones, 2003) and when people move from one context to another. (Frable, 1997, p. 147)

In a study with 38 low-income (annual incomes fell below the national poverty line) undergraduate college students (28 from a state university and 10 from a community college), Ritz and Hyers (2005) used focus groups to investigate the extent to which participants (76.3% female and 50% European American) faced everyday experiences with classism on their college campus and to examine the nature of these experiences. Five themes, identified from transcripts of the focus groups using grounded theory, represented the most common experiences of classism described by participants: (a) middle-class assumptions emanating from peers, instructors, and administrative staff; (b) insensitive/classist comments; (c) bureaucratic hassles; (d) experiences with others who were flaunting their higher levels of social class; and (e) experiences of being excluded/avoided by others. Experiences with classism were described by participants as occurring on a regular basis and were perceived to be an integral part of their everyday lives. Participants’ experiences with classism included blatant and subtle instances, were reported as emanating from strangers and intimates, and reportedly occurred in both short and long interactions with others. Ritz and Hyers concluded that three of the types of prejudicial incidents reported by the participants are similar to incidents reported in the everyday racism literature measured using the SRE (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, 1996); whereas two types of incidents (i.e., flaunting and bureaucratic hassles) appear to be unique to individuals’ experiences with classism.

More recently, using a sample of 950 undergraduate students (63% female and 73% European American) from a “wealthy, elite, private, liberal arts school,” where tuition (including room and board) is around $40,000 per year (p. 152), Langhout et al. (2007) developed and tested a behaviorally based measure of classism, the Classism Experiences Questionnaire—Academe (CEQ-A). Factor analysis of the CEQ-A yielded a three-factor model: institutionalized classism (classism due to organizational structures), citational classism (telling disparaging jokes and making stereotypic comments about people who are from lower class backgrounds), and interpersonal classism via discounting (behaviors perceived to be intentionally dismissive of an individual’s social class background such as assuming that a person could afford something). Results also demonstrated that students’ experiences with classism occurred regularly (base rates of citational, institutionalized, and interpersonal classism were 58%, 43%, and 80%, respectively).

Langhout et al.’s (2007) research was not without limitations. The CEQ-A was validated on what appears to be a relatively privileged sample of undergraduates attending a private liberal arts college, which limits the generalizability of the measure. Further, they do not provide information about actual levels of capital of their students or the extent to which students identified with more traditional and objective indices of SES (i.e., income level, self-reported social class category, education, or occupation of parents). Additionally, the CEQ-A items exclusively assess students’ experiences with classism on their academic campus with fellow students and professors. Although the CEQ-A offered a needed analysis of experiences with classism, it is limited in its ability to tap experiences with classism that may occur in the larger context of the everyday prejudice literature (e.g., Feagin, 1991; Swim et al., 1998). As such, vocational research (and psychological research more generally) may benefit from the development of an improved measure of classism.

Study 1

Development and Exploration of the EWCS

Concurrent with the efforts of Langhout et al. (2007), we sought to develop a measure of everyday classism grounded in accepted psychological definitions of classism (Lee & Dean, 2004; Liu, 2002; Liu et al., 2004) and theories of its operation (Feagin, 1991; Ritz & Hyers, 2005). A behavioral self-report measure was utilized in order to parallel other measures of everyday prejudice (i.e., the SRE to assess experiences with racism, Landrine & Klonoff, 1996, and the SSE, Klonoff & Landrine, 1995, to assess experiences with sexism). Item content was also informed by findings from prior qualitative research on everyday experiences with classism (e.g., Ritz & Hyers, 2005). The purpose of Study 1 is to describe the development of the EWCS and provide initial evidence of its psychometric properties.

Method

Participants

Undergraduate students (n = 299) were recruited as part of a larger study (Thompson & Subich, 2011) from psychology courses and the campus student union for their participation in the study. Students attended a large, open enrollment, Midwestern University at which 23% of undergraduate students attend part-time. The current sample is the representative of the student body at this institution, where 18% of students are U.S. racial/ethnic minority students, students’ average age is 22 years, approximately 78% receive financial assistance, and many are first-generation college students.

Most of the participants in our study were women (n = 202) and they ranged in age from 17 to 50 years with a mean age of 21.04 (SD = 5.04) years. Fifty-five percent of the participants identified as European American, and 44.5% reported other backgrounds (e.g., 29.1% African American, 5.7% Biracial, 2% Asian American, 2% Hispanic/Latina, 1.7% International Student, and 1% Native American). Eighty-nine percent of participants identified as exclusively or mostly heterosexual.

Most students self-identified as belonging to the middle class (44%), but 15 participants (5%) self-identified as belonging to the lower class, 23% self-identified as belonging to the lower middle class, 24% self-identified as belonging to the upper middle class, and 3% self-identified as belonging to the upper class. Sixty percent of participants indicated that they were first-generation college students. Finally, the annual income level in the household in which they were raised was reported by 24.7% of participants as less than $40,000, by 21% as $40,000–$59,999, by 26.8% as $60,000–$89,999, and by 22.7% as greater than $90,000.

Development of EWCS Item Pool

The EWCS was designed to tap experiences with everyday classism as defined by the everyday prejudice literature (e.g., Feagin, 1991; Swim et al., 1998) and was constructed in two parts. First, items were modified to parallel the SRE (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996) and the SSE (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995), given the well-documented empirical support for their ability to capture behaviorally based experiences with racial (e.g., Fischer & Shaw, 1999) and sex (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, 1997) discrimination in U.S. society, respectively. The SRE was originally developed by adapting the SSE to be relevant to racial discrimination. More recently, the SRE was adapted to assess everyday experiences with ethnic discrimination for members of diverse racial/ethnic groups in the development of the General Ethnic Discrimination (GED) scale (Landrine, Klonoff, Coral, Fernandez, & Roesch, 2006). For the development of the EWCS, each item from the GED was altered to be reflective of experiences with discrimination as a result of social class background as opposed to race/ethnicity. For example, Item 1 of the GED reads “How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by teachers and professors because of your race/ethnicity?” and was altered to read “How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by teachers and professors because of your social class?”

Additional items were written to assess the two everyday experiences of classism themes that were demonstrated to be distinct from everyday experiences with racism (i.e., flaunting and bureaucratic hassles) based on Ritz and Hyers’ (2005) qualitative investigation. Items to assess these domains were generated by reviewing participant responses provided to Ritz and Hyers in their in-depth interviews. Sample items included: “How often do you feel like you have been treated differently in the past year on the basis of your appearance (clothing, type of bag/purse you carried, shoes)?” and “How often have you felt frustrated with all of the steps that you had to take with the financial aid office or banks in order to have access to money for school?”

A list of 28 potential items (including 17 items adapted from the SRE and 11 new items) was generated to assess an individual’s experiences with classism. Like the SRE, item responses were made on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 never happened to you to 6 happened almost all of the time (more than 70% of the time). These items were reviewed for clarity and completeness by the two researchers and a group of three counseling psychology faculty members and one counseling center psychologist. Next, two undergraduate students (not involved with the research team) reviewed the items for readability and their adequacy to capture experiences with classism. After each round of reviews, only minor changes in the wording of items were made.

Results

Given the novelty of the EWCS and the lack of an a priori empirical basis for specifying the number of factors or items’ patterns of factor loadings (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999), exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify underlying latent factors from the 28 items in the EWCS so as to evaluate its construct validity. Analyses were conducted using principal axis factoring with an oblimin rotation (given the assumption that any set of latent factors would reflect different aspects of the superordinate construct of experiences with classism). Three criteria were used to determine the number of factors to be extracted for the final factor solution: eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser criterion), Cattell’s scree test, and the interpretability of the solution, using a factor loading cutoff of .32 (as suggested by Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Four factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and together they accounted for 63.13% of the variance. After inspecting the scree plot, however, the two- and three-factor solutions were studied. Initial eigenvalues and percentage of variance accounted for by each of the first three factors were: Factor 1 (eigenvalue = 11.96, 44.29% of variance); Factor 2 (Eigenvalue = 2.44, 9.04% of variance); Factor 3 (eigenvalue = 1.39, 5.14% of variance). Ultimately, it was determined that the two-factor solution was more interpretable than the three-factor solution and yielded a simpler factor structure. Parallel analysis confirmed that two factors are appropriate, given the number of items and the sample size (Lautenschlager, 1989). Inspection of the intercorrelations between the two factors revealed a moderately high relation, (.56), thereby supporting the use of an oblimin rotation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Three items were dropped from the EWCS because their cross-loading on both factors was higher than the factor loading cutoff of .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Examination of the two factors and the items associated with each corresponded to the construction of the questionnaire. Specifically, the 18 items that loaded onto Factor 1 included 17 of the 18 items originally adapted from the SRE, plus one additional item that tapped experiences with being treated unfairly by friends. The 8 items that loaded onto Factor 2 included 7 of the 10 items developed to assess the everyday systemic experiences of classism that were themes derived from Ritz and Hyers’ (2005) qualitative investigation (i.e., flaunting and bureaucratic hassles). The two factors were named personalized experiences of classism (EWCS-personal) and systemic experiences of classism (EWCS-systemic). The total amount of variance accounted for by this two-factor solution was 54.23% (see Table 1 for all items and their factor loadings). The internal consistency reliability coefficients (α) of the EWCS subscales identified through the present factor analysis were high: .95 for the EWCS-personal subscale and .85 for the EWCS-systemic subscale.

Table 1.

Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Item	Factor
Item	1	2
1. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by teachers and professors because of your social class?	.700	.045
2. How many times have you been treated unfairly by your employers, bosses, and supervisors in the past year because of your social class?	.781	−.038
3. How many times have you been treated unfairly by your coworkers, fellow students, and colleagues in the past year because of your social class?	.744	−.029
4. How many times have you been treated unfairly by people in service jobs (store clerks, waiters, bartenders, bank tellers, and others) in the past year because of your social class?	.735	.009
5. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by strangers because of your social class?	.595	.084
6. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by people in helping jobs (doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, case workers, dentists, school counselors, therapists, social workers, and others) because of your social class?	.656	.132
7. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by neighbors because of your social class?	.729	−.026
8. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by institutions (schools, universities, law firms, the police, the courts, the Department of Social Services, the Unemployment Office and others) because of your social class?	.734	.117
9. How many times have you been treated unfairly in the past year by people that you thought were your friends because of your social class?	.815	−.087
10. How many times have you been accused or suspected of doing something wrong (such as stealing, cheating, not doing your share of the work, or breaking the law) in the past year because of your social class?	.832	−.050
11. How many times in the past year have people misunderstood your intentions and motives because of your social class?	.763	−.054
12. How many times did you want to tell someone off for being classist but did not say anything in the past year?	.530	.066
13. How many times have you been really angry about something classist that was done to you in the past year?	.645	.015
14. How many times were you forced to take drastic steps (such as filing a grievance, filing a lawsuit, quitting your job, moving away, and other actions) to deal with some classist thing that was done to you in the past year?	.806	−.085
15. How many times have you been called a name like poor, welfare recipient, hobo, poor white trash, ghetto, or other names in the past year?	.556	.041
16. How many times have you gotten into an argument or a fight about something classist that was done to you or done to somebody else in the past year?	.698	.047
17. How many times have you been made fun of, picked on, pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm because of your social class in the past year?	.771	−.047
18. How often do you feel like you have been treated differently in the past year on the basis of your physical appearance (clothing, type of bag/purse you carried, and shoes)?	.083	.507
19. How often, in the past year, do you feel like you have had service persons (e.g., waiters/waitresses, cashiers, etc.) treat you differently when paying your bill based on what you purchased?	.256	.444
20. How many times have you been treated differently in the past year by your friends because of your social class?	.633	.068
21. How often in the past year have you had difficulty getting everything you needed for school in place because you were waiting for financial aid to provide you with your check? (e.g., you were unable to buy used books at the bookstore because by the time your financial aid check came, all of the used copies were sold out)	−.030	.756
22. How often have you felt frustrated with all of the steps that you had to take with the financial aid office or banks in order to have access to money for school?	−.166	.849
23. How often in the past year have you felt that your social class was easily identifiable because of steps you were required to take on campus? (e.g., having to stand in a separate line for those needing financial aid or waiting for financial aid checks or paying dues required to be involved in a sorority or fraternity on campus)?	.126	.714
24. How often in the past year did you feel that friends, roommates, and/or classmates “showed off” their ability to buy nice things, go on vacations, and drive nice cars?	.012	.710
25. How often in the past year did you feel that you were treated differently because you brought your lunch to school/work rather than buying it?	.270	.401

Note. Principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblimin rotation. Items’ strongest factor loading are in bold.

Differences in scores on the EWCS were also examined by participant-identified gender and racial/ethnic group. Gender differences were demonstrated for the EWCS-personal subscale, t(295) = 2.29; p < .05, d = .28, with men (M = 31.76, SD = 14.38) reporting significantly more experiences with classism than women (M = 28.06, SD = 12.29). No gender differences were demonstrated for the EWCS-systemic subscale, t(295) = −.68; p > .05. To test for differences in racial/ethnic group membership, data were combined across the classifications of African American, Biracial, Asian American, Native American, Hispanic American, East Indian, International Student, and Other. A t test demonstrated differences in the prevalence of experiences with classism for non-European American and European American students for the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscales, t(295) = 6.355; p < .01, d = .72; t(295) = 4.21, p < .01, d = .49; respectively. Specifically, non-European American students reported greater numbers of experiences with classism (M = 34.36, SD = 15.71; M = 17.76, SD = 7.79) than did European American students (M = 25.23, SD = 8.74; M =14.35, SD = 6.20) on the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscales, respectively.

Study 1 Discussion

Results from Study 1 suggest that the EWCS is a promising measure of undergraduate students’ experiences with classism for a sample that was relatively diverse in terms of self-reported race/ethnicity, social class (i.e., 28% of our sample identified as lower or lower-middle class; 24.7% reported annual household incomes of less than $40,000), and first-generation college student status. Specifically, the EWCS demonstrated high internal consistency reliability, had a clear and stable factor structure, and captured expected group differences in the nature of experiences with classism. Results from the EFA highlighted the existence of two moderately correlated subscales that are consistent with the initial conceptual and methodological development of the scale. Content of the EWCS was derived from items demonstrated to assess successfully sexism (i.e., SSE; Klonoff & Landrine, 1995) and ethnic discrimination (i.e., GED scale; Landrine et al., 2006) supplemented with themes reported by Ritz and Hyers (2005) in their qualitative research on college students’ encounters with social class issues. The two factors revealed, therefore, make both conceptual and empirical sense and offer a multidimensional assessment of classism that may prove useful in advancing research on this phenomenon.

Supporting this suggestion, results from a prior analysis of the larger data set from which the present data were derived (Thompson & Subich, 2011) indicated that correlations among self-reported childhood income levels and scores on the EWCS subscales for these college students were in the expected direction; self-reported income was negatively related to reported experiences of personal (r = −.19, p < .01) and systemic (r = −.30, p < .01) classism. Further, results from t tests indicated that individuals who self-identified as lower and lower middle class reported significantly greater numbers of experiences with personal and systemic classism than did participants who self-identified as middle class and upper class. As anticipated, therefore, individuals who identified lower levels of family income in the past and as lower or lower middle class reported more experiences with classism.

Results from Study 1 also corroborated Langhout et al.’s (2007) findings with the CEQ-A that non-European American students reported more experiences with personal and systemic classism than did their European American counterparts. These patterns suggest the EWCS is able to capture logical and meaningful differences in experiences among individuals. Unexpectedly, results from the present investigation were inconsistent with those of Langhout and colleagues in that women and men did not differ in their reported experiences with systemic classism, and in the finding that men reported more experiences with personal classism than did women. This inconsistency may be a function of the different item content and perspective of the two instruments, of the small sample size of men (N = 95) compared to women (N = 202) in Study 1, of social class differences in the students at the institutions where data collections took place, or of the fact that Langhout and colleagues examined the interaction of gender, race, and capital in their assessment of gender differences rather than examining main effects for gender.

Study 2: Validity Evidence for the EWCS and its Relation to Mental Health Outcomes

Results from Study 1 suggested that the EWCS appears promising as a measure of everyday experiences with classism according to the everyday prejudice literature. Further data are needed, however, in order to assess more specifically the psychometric properties of the EWCS and to examine its relation to other criterion outcomes (Cattell, 1952). The purpose of Study 2 was to further establish the validity of the EWCS with a new sample by placing the two subscales in a nomological network of convergent and discriminant and criterion measures.

First, Langhout et al.’s (2007) CEQ-A was used to provide an indication of the extent to which the EWCS and CEQ-A appear to be tapping similar or distinct experiences related to classism. In particular, based on Langhout et al.’s description of the development of the CEQ-A, it was anticipated that the EWCS subscales would be related to the institutional classism and interpersonal classism via discounting subscales as these subscales assess experiences similar to those that the EWCS aims to tap (i.e., classism related to organizational structures and dismissive behaviors directed toward lower class individuals), but not to the citational classism subscale that taps a seemingly distinct experience of classism (i.e., telling disparaging jokes and making stereotypic comments about people who are from lower class backgrounds).

Second, given that everyday experiences with classism appear to overlap with other individual difference variables (e.g., race/ethnicity and gender), the relations of classism experiences with two other individual difference variables (i.e., social desirability response tendency and negative affectivity) were examined in an effort to establish discriminant validity. Specifically, it was expected that the EWCS subscales would not relate to the tendency to present oneself in a socially desirable manner or to negative affectivity. As such, the following hypotheses related to convergent and discriminant validity were proposed:

Hypothesis 1: EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscale scores relate positively to the interpersonal classism via discounting and institutional classism subscales of the CEQ-A, respectively, and are not significantly related to the CEQ-A citational classism subscale.

Hypothesis 2: The EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscale scores are not significantly related to negative affectivity or social desirability.

Given the findings from previous literature that has supported the link between experiences with discrimination and psychological distress (e.g., Fischer & Shaw, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1997; Landrine, Klonoff, Gibbs, Manning, & Lund, 1995; Swim et al., 2001), the EWCS also was examined as a concurrent predictor of several mental health outcomes. Relations of social class and SES to increased psychopathology, including depression (Lorant et al., 2003; Poulton et al., 2002), anxiety (Lynch, Kaplan, & Salonen, 1997), and substance abuse and dependence (e.g., Diala, Muntaner, & Walrath, 2004) have been observed, and it seems reasonable to suggest that discrimination based on social class may underlie in part those observed relations. Consequently, we tested the relations of EWCS subscale scores to anxiety, stress, depression, self-esteem, and wellness for a college student sample.

The following hypothesis was, therefore, proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Higher scores on the EWCS subscales positively relate to depression, anxiety, and stress and negatively relate to perceived wellness and self-esteem.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Undergraduate students were recruited from psychology courses and received course credit for their participation in the study. This sample was comprised of a distinct group of participants from the same institution as was described in Study 1. One hundred and ninety students participated in this study and completed the majority of the survey. There were, however, missing data at the full-scale level for 40 students (i.e., the measures that were included at the end of the survey were left blank, likely due to fatigue). As a result, responses from all students were included in the majority of the analysis, but analyses involving some scales placed at the end of the survey (including demographic data) are based on a smaller number of participants (see reported n sizes in the Results section for more detail).

The 150 students who completed the demographic information ranged in age from 18 to 42 years (M = 21.04; SD = 5.04). One hundred and eight participants were women and 42 were men. Students identified as representing the following racial/ethnic groups: African American (17), European American/Caucasian (123), Biracial (4), and other (6). Regarding social class background, 7 self-identified as belonging to the lower class, 30 as lower middle class, 76 as middle class, 36 as upper middle class, and 1 as upper class. When asked about the annual income level in the household in which they were raised, 33 reported incomes less than $40,000, 33 reported incomes of $40,000–$59,999, 52 reported incomes of $60,000–$89,999, and 31 indicated incomes greater than $90,000 (one student did not specify). Sixty-one students indicated that they were first-generation college students and 89 indicated that they were not.

Measures

EWCS (Thompson, 2008)

For the present sample, the coefficient α for the EWCS-personal subscale was .97 and the α for the EWCS-systemic subscale was .83.

CEQ-A (Langhout, Rosselli, & Feinstein, 2007)

The CEQ-A is designed to assess students’ experiences with classism along three domains: institutionalized classism (5 items), citational classism (9 items), and interpersonal classism via discounting (7 items). Participants respond to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never to many times. Responses are scored for each subscale by creating a binary score with 1 indicating a response of never and 2 indicating any other response (i.e., once or twice to many times; see Langhout et al., 2007, for a review). Total scores may range from 1 to 5 for the institutionalized classism, 1–9 for the citational classism, and 1–7 for the interpersonal classism via discounting subscales, with higher scores indicating more experiences with classism.

Citational and interpersonal classism have been demonstrated to be related negatively to outcomes such as psychological well-being, social adjustment, academic adjustment, and positive school feelings, and positively to a desire and intentions to leave the university. Institutional classism was positively related to a desire and intentions to leave the university and negatively related to levels of academic adjustment and positive feelings toward school (Langhout, Drake, & Roselli, 2009; Langhout et al., 2007). Previous research has demonstrated coefficient αs of .74 for the institutionalized classism subscale, .92 to .93 for the citational classism subscale, and .83 for the interpersonal classism via discounting subscale (Langhout et al., 2007; Langhout et al., 2009). For the present study, coefficient α was .65, .93, and .84 for the institutional, citational, and interpersonal classism via discounting subscales, respectively.

Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960)

The MCSDS is designed to assess the tendency to respond in socially desirable ways on self-report measures. It has been the most frequently used measure of socially desirable responding in research for several decades (Beretvas, Meyers, & Leite, 2002). The MCSDS is comprised of 33 items to which participants respond using a true–false format. The 33 items comprise two factors: attribution, or the tendency to endorse items depicting socially acceptable but uncommon behaviors (18 items), and denial, or the tendency to deny socially disapproved but common behaviors (15 items). Support for this two-factor structure (Loo & Loewen, 2004) as well as for its test–retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, and validity exists (see Beretvas et al., 2002, for a review). Internal consistency reliability for the present sample was .93 for the attribution subscale and .95 for the denial subscale.

Strain-Free Negative Affectivity scale—short form (SFNA; Fortunato & Stone-Romero, 1999)

The SFNA is designed to measure negative emotional reactivity. A short form of the original 28-item version includes 13 items (Fortunato & Stone-Romero, 1999). Participants respond to the items on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Total scores may range from 13 to 78, with higher scores indicating higher levels of negative affectivity. Internal consistency has been demonstrated to be .85 for the 28-item version and .83 for the short form (Fortunato & Stone-Romero, 1999). For the present sample, coefficient α was .79.

Self-Esteem scale (SE; Rosenberg, 1965)

The 10-item Self-Esteem scale was used to assess participants’ self-esteem. Responses are made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Scores may range from 10 to 50 with lower scores indicating higher self-esteem. The Self-Esteem scale has been shown to have internal consistency reliability estimates that range from .77 to .88 and test–retest reliabilities that range from .82 to .88 (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1993). The α for the current sample was .88.

Depression-Anxiety-Stress scales—short form (DASS-SF; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995)

The DASS-SF is a 21-item scale designed to assess an individual’s endorsement of experiencing negative symptoms over the past week. Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they experienced each of the 21 symptoms on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from “did not apply to me at all” to “applied to me very much, or most of the time.” The DASS-SF consists of three subscales (each containing 7 items) intended to tap Depression, Anxiety, and Stress. Item responses for each subscale are summed to determine an individual’s score. Previous research has demonstrated that the subscales correlate as expected with other measures; the Anxiety scale correlated at .81 with the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Depression scale correlated at .74 with the Beck Depression Inventory (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Although the three subscales have been demonstrated to be moderately highly correlated, results of factor analysis revealed three separate subscales, which is consistent with the design of the measure (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). From their analysis of the psychometric properties of the subscales, Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) concluded “the analyses confirmed that the Stress scale as a whole contains a coherent set of symptoms that may be differentiated from depression and anxiety” (p. 342). Previous internal consistency reliability estimates for the depression, anxiety, and stress subscales have been demonstrated to be .91, .84, and .90, respectively (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Alphas for the current sample were .91, .87, and .88 for the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scales, respectively.

Perceived wellness survey (PWS; Adams, Bezner, & Steinhardt, 1997)

The PWS was developed to operationalize the perceived wellness model (Adams et al.) in order to assess a multidimensional understanding of well-being across six domains: emotional (self-esteem and self regard), intellectual (optimal intellectual stimulation), physical (physical health perceptions), psychological (optimism and positive life expectancy), social (receiving and providing support), and spiritual (positive perceptions of life meaning and purposeful living) wellness (Adams et al.). Participants indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with items using a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater perceived wellness.

Although the original PWS designed to assess the six life dimensions proposed by the perceived wellness model and an initial confirmatory factor analysis using an alternative models strategy revealed support for the six-factor solution (Adams et al., 1997), more recent research has demonstrated empirical support for the use of a revised 33-item one-factor PWS (see Harari, Waehler, & Rogers, 2005, for a full description). This revised 33-item version of the PWS was demonstrated to account for significant variance in the Beck Depression Inventory—second edition, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Hopkins Symptom Checklist-21 when controlling for impression management. The original 36-item version of the PWS has been demonstrated to have high test–retest reliability estimates (.73 to .81) over a 2-week period (Adams, Bezner, Garner, & Woodruff, 1998; Adams et al., 1997). Data support the internal consistency reliability of both the original full scale (.88 to .93; Adams et al., 1997; Adams, et al., 1998) and the revised 33-item version (.91; Harari et al., 2005). For the present study, we used the 33-item single factor version of the PWS and α was estimated to be .91.

Results

See Table 2 for the full pattern of intercorrelations among the primary variables. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, results demonstrated that the EWCS subscales correlated as expected with the CEQ-A subscales. Specifically, the EWCS-personal subscale and the EWCS-systemic subscale were significantly and positively related to the CEQ-institutional (r = .352, p < .01; r = .469, p < .01, respectively) and the CEQ-interpersonal classism via discounting (r = .157, p < .05; r = .295, p < .01, respectively) subscales, but neither significantly related to the CEQ-citational classism subscale (r = .044, p > .05; r = .144, p > .05, respectively); the sample size was 190 for all of these analyses. Inspection of this pattern of intercorrelations suggests that the EWCS subscales are tapping related, yet, distinct constructs from the CEQ-institutional and CEQ-interpersonal subscales and are unrelated to the CEQ-citational classism subscale.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Among Primary Variables.

	PWS	SE	EWCS-S	EWCS-P	STR	ANX	DEP	SDS1	SDS2	SFNA	CEQ-I	CEQ-C	CEQ-D
PWS	1	.782*	−.399*	−.447*	−.479*	−.573*	−.637*	−.015	.073	−.023	−.322*	−.140	−.325*
N	158	153	158	158	158	158	158	126	126	132	158	158	158
SE		1	−.325*	−.378*	−.426*	−.478*	−.680*	.054	.096	.001	−.243*	−.099	−.214*
N		181	181	181	180	180	180	143	143	152	181	181	181
EWCS-S			1	.711*	.428*	.415*	.404*	−.029	−.062	−.087	.295*	.114	.469*
N			190	190	189	189	189	149	149	158	190	190	190
EWCS-P				1	.456*	.529*	.467*	.033	−.034	−.113	.157*	.044	.352*
N				190	189	189	189	149	149	158	190	190	190
STR					1	.736*	.691*	−.090	−.165*	.170**	.243*	.215*	.402*
N					189	189	189	149	149	157	189	189	189
ANX						1	.679*	−.142	−.173**	.049	.301*	.044	.306*
N						189	189	149	149	157	189	189	189
DEP							1	−.192**	−.202**	−.002	.224*	.103	.248*
N							189	149	149	157	189	189	189
SDS1								1	.849*	−.023	.049	.110	.037
N								149	149	149	149	149	149
SDS2									1	−.186**	.039	.077	.004
N									149	149	149	149	149
SFNA										1	−.014	.102	.019
N										158	158	158	158
CEQ-I											1	.168**	.446*
N											190	190	190
CEQ-C												1	.391*
N												190	190
CEQ-D													1
N													190

Note. ANX = anxiety; CEQ-C = CEQ citational; CEQ-D = CEQ distancing; CEQ-I = CEQ institutional; DEP = depression; EWCS-P = experiences with classism-personal; EWCS-S = experiences with classism-systemic; PWS = Perceived well-being; SDS1 = attribution; SDS2 = denial; SE = self-esteem; SFNA = strain-free negative affectivity; STR = stress.

*p ≤ .01. **p ≤ .05.

Results were also consistent with expectations for Hypothesis 2; neither EWCS subscale significantly related to SFNA (r = −.113, p > .05 for EWCS-personal; r = −.087, p > .05 for EWCS-systemic; n = 158) or to the two subscales of the MCSDS. Specifically, the attribution subscale was unrelated to EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic (r = .033, p > .05; r = −.029, p > .05, respectively) as was the denial subscale (r = −.034, p > .05; r = −.062, p > .05, respectively); the sample size was 149 for these analyses.

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, both the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscales related positively to Depression (r = .47, p < .01; r = .40, p < .01, respectively), Anxiety (r = .53, p < .01; r = .42, p < .01, respectively), and Stress (r = .46, p < .01; r = .43, p < .01, respectively); sample size was 189 for these correlations, Further, both the EWCS-personal and EWCS-systemic subscales related negatively to perceived wellness (r = −.45, p < .01; r = −.40, p < .01, respectively; n = 158) and self-esteem (r = −.38, p < .01; r = −.33, p < .01, respectively; n = 181).

Hierarchical regression analyses were then conducted in order to determine whether the EWCS subscales contribute incrementally to each of the five criterion variables examined in this study (i.e., EWCS-personal was entered into Step 1 and EWCS-systemic was entered into Step 2). Results demonstrated that the EWCS-systemic subscale contributed incremental variance above the contribution of the EWCS-personal subscale for Stress but not for Anxiety, Depression, Perceived Well-Being, or Self-esteem (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regressions for Predictions of Criterion Variables (N = xx).

Step and variable	β	R ²	F	Adjusted R ²	ΔR ²	ΔF
Criterion: PWS
Step 1
EWCS-personal	−.34*	.20	38.94*	.20	.20	38.94*
Step 2
EWCS-systemic	−.15	.21	20.60*	.20	.01	2.01
Criterion: STR
Step 1
EWCS-personal	.31*	.21	49.05*	.20	.21	49.05*
Step 2
EWCS-systemic	.21**	.23	27.74*	.22	.02	5.31**
Criterion: ANX
Step 1
EWCS-personal	.47*	.28	72.49*	.28	.28	72.49*
Step 2
EWCS-systemic	.08*	.28	36.63*	.28	.003	.84
Criterion: DEP
Step 1
EWCS-personal	.36*	.21	52.18*	.21	.22	52.18*
Step 2
EWCS-systemic	.15	.22	27.558*	.22	.01	2.51
Criterion: S-E
Step 1
EWCS-personal	−.30*	.14	29.78*	.14	.14	29.78*
Step 2
EWCS-Systemic	−.11	.15	15.26*	.14	.01	1.26

Note. βs in table are from final analysis; DSIS = Differential Status Identity scale; PWS = perceived well-being; STR = stress; ANX = anxiety; DEP = depression; S-E = self-esteem; STR, ANX, and DEP N = 189; PWS N = 158; S-E N = 181.

*p ≤ .01. **p ≤ .05.

Study 2 Discussion

Results from Study 2 provided further validity evidence for the EWCS. Correlations of the EWCS subscales with Langhout et al.’s (2007) CEQ-A subscales suggested overlap as well as differentiation. Specifically, although both EWCS subscales correlated significantly with the CEQ-A subscales for institutionalized and interpersonal classism via discounting, none of the correlation coefficients were so large as to indicate complete overlap (rs ranged from .16 to .47). As would be expected due to their more similar item content, the strongest of these correlations was demonstrated to be between the EWCS-systemic subscale and the CEQ-A institutional subscale. Also as expected, neither EWCS subscale correlated with the CEQ-A citational classism subscale; this latter subscale seems to assess a very distinct and more indirect classist experience. The CEQ-A citational classism subscale addresses one’s witnessing of other students and professors making classist remarks rather than focusing solely at the level of an individual’s experience with discrimination resulting from her or his social position, as is the case with the EWCS-personal subscale.

Evidence for discriminant validity of the EWCS was demonstrated by the lack of a relation between the EWCS subscales and the two individual difference measures. Specifically, the EWCS is not assessing a mode of responding nor are its scores reflective of a person’s general affective orientation.

Findings also supported the concurrent validity of the EWCS. Specifically, results were consistent with previous literature (e.g., Fischer & Shaw, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1997; Landrine et al., 1995; Swim et al., 2001) demonstrating relations among experiences with discrimination and psychological distress. As anticipated, higher scores on both EWCS subscales were significantly related to increased levels of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress, and to lower levels of wellness and self-esteem. Further extending our understanding of the EWCS subscales, the results from the exploratory hierarchical regression analyses revealed that each EWCS subscale contributed unique variance to the prediction of Stress, but not to the other criterion variables. These latter findings support the differential utility of the subscales with some, but not all, criterion variables.

General Discussion

This series of two studies introduced and offered psychometric data on a new self-report measure of experiences with classism that was designed for use with college students, the EWCS. The EWCS is grounded in the literature on everyday prejudice and builds on prior measures that assessed sexism and racism. The EWCS was intended to extend prior theoretical conceptualizations of discrimination resulting from one’s social class position (i.e., Fouad & Brown, 2000; Liu, 2002; Smith, 2005), empirical data exploring the operationalization of classism for college students (i.e., Ritz & Hyers, 2005), and quantitative work examining experiences with classism on college campuses (Langhout et al., 2007; Ostrove & Cole, 2003).

Taken together, the results from Study 1 and Study 2 indicate that the EWCS has a two-factor structure with modest overlap of factors. Each factor exhibited high internal consistency reliability estimates across two distinct samples of participants. This research also demonstrated evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the EWCS, and that its two subscales appear to be conceptually meaningful. Although there is tentative evidence that the two subscales are distinctive in their explanatory power, at least for specific outcomes, further research examining the extent of their distinctiveness is needed in future research, particularly as applied to vocational outcomes.

Limitations and Directions for Research and Practice

As noted, the EWCS appears to be a promising new measure of experiences with classism that may have a number of potential psychological implications. Additional research is needed, however, to establish the psychometric properties of the measure more fully. In particular, future research is needed to further assess the factor structure of the EWCS, to examine whether the two subscales contribute incrementally to a variety of education- and career-related outcomes, to examine response patterns among participants from various social class backgrounds, and to examine the applicability of the EWCS to larger and more diverse samples (especially given the missing data encountered in Study 2).

The EWCS was designed to examine the experiences with classism of students in higher education settings so the present findings may not generalize to a broader adult population. Despite suggestions from scholars that experiences with classism may be particularly salient during college (e.g., Fouad & Brown, 2000; Langhout et al., 2007; Ostrove & Long, 2007), the inclusion of campus-specific items in the measure may be seen as hindering the study of classism with other groups. Given that the items comprising the EWCS-personal subscale are primarily those adapted from the GED, however, it is reasonable to expect that this subscale could generalize to other populations; the SRE and the GED have been used effectively with varied community samples (e.g., Klonoff & Landrine, 1999; Klonoff, Landrine, & Ullman, 1999; Landrine et al., 2006). In particular, only 3 items from this subscale specifically reference school or campus (i.e., Item 1 references teachers and professors, Item 3 includes fellow students in the list of potential others, and Item 8 includes universities as an example of an institution). These items could be easily altered to be applied to noncollege student samples.

In contrast, given the specific focus of the EWCS-systemic subscale on experiences related to flaunting and bureaucratic hassles on college campuses as identified by Ritz and Hyers (2005), most of its items more specifically reference factors relevant to college students. The EWCS-systemic subscale, therefore, may be less easily adapted or generalized for use with other samples. Nevertheless, research is needed to examine empirically the applicability of both EWCS subscales to other populations (e.g., working adults, secondary school students, noncollege bound youth), and whether alternate versions without education-specific items may be warranted for different samples.

Future measurement development efforts are also needed in order to assess other types of experiences with classism (i.e., upward classism, lateral classism, and internalized classism) as conceptualized by Liu (2002) in his SCWM. Specifically, research is needed in order to understand more clearly how to measure such diverse experiences of classism. For example, it is unclear whether individuals from upper-class backgrounds would respond similarly to those from lower-class backgrounds on some items of the EWCS. Additionally, the EWCS was not designed to tap an individual’s experience of internalized classism, which is proposed to have important implications for one’s identity development and perception of self (Liu). The development of a measure of internalized classism that includes cognitive and affective components seems warranted. Findings from Nelson, Englar-Carlson, Tierney, and Hau’s (2006) qualitative investigation demonstrated that individuals experienced guilt, disappointment, and anxiety as a result of “class jumping.” These findings may offer an initial glimpse of the affective and cognitive experiences that one may experience related to her or his social class position and could be extended to explore internalized classism for those who are unable to meet the class expectations of his or her perceived economic group.

Despite the need to further develop the EWCS, the current scale appears strong enough to begin to serve vocational and psychological researchers. Specific to vocational psychology, it may assist those interested in understanding the relation of social class and experiences with classism to college students’ vocational processes and outcomes. In addition, the development of the EWCS offers a mechanism by which researchers can examine everyday classism experiences in conjunction with sexism and racism experiences to determine the separate and joint manner in which these different oppressions impact individuals’ occupational choice and development; this may enhance the sophistication of research on vocational barriers in a way suggested by Lent et al. in 2000. Further, in accord with Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s (1994, 2000) SCCT model, it may be possible now to examine specifically how persons’ coping and coping efficacy function as protective or compensatory mechanisms for the suggested deleterious effects of the barrier of proximal classism experiences on occupational goals and actions. Similarly, the EWCS may facilitate examination of some of Blustein’s (2006) tenets with regard to his psychology of working theory (e.g., that the effects of classism may be confounded with those of racism and sexism, that classism may influence how workers perceive and value themselves and their work). Use of the EWCS, thus, may advance vocational theory and empirical research.

An important avenue for future research and perhaps practice is suggested by the present finding that classism experiences, as assessed with the EWCS, appear to be related to deleterious mental health outcomes. This finding corroborates previous research demonstrating that experiences with racism and sexism have similar relations with mental health outcomes (e.g., Fischer & Shaw, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1997; Swim et al., 2001). As such, it seems important to begin to examine the longitudinal effects of experiences with classism as related to individuals’ psychological and vocational functioning.

Thompson and Subich (2011) recently noted that classism experiences related to weakened confidence in career decision making, but it remains to be explored whether classism experiences are related as well to such problematic vocational outcomes as diminished job performance and satisfaction, circumscribed job search scope or behavior, or negative outcome expectations for particular career decisions. The role of classism in motivating and/or blocking persons’ occupational aspirations, choices, and adjustment also remains to be determined. Confirmation of such effects would be important information for practitioners working with students and clients at risk as targets of classism. It would also provide an impetus for intervention research to identify effective ways to combat these ill effects. In sum, the EWCS offers a tool to advance the work of scholars such as Blustein (2006), Navarro, Flores, and Worthington (2007), Thompson and Subich (2006), and Ali, McWhirter, and Chronister (2005) who have begun to explore the role of social class in vocational psychology.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

Bezner

Garner

Woodruff

(1998). Construct validation of the Perceived Wellness Survey. American Journal of Health Studies, 14, 212–222.

Adams

Bezner

Steinhardt

(1997). The conceptualization and measurement of perceived wellness: Integrating balance across and within dimensions. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 208–218.

Ali

S. R.

McWhirter

E. H.

Chronister

K. M.

(2005). Self-efficacy and vocational outcome expectations for adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: A pilot study. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 40–58. doi:10.1177/1069072704270273

Beretvas

S. N.

Meyers

J. L.

Leite

W. L.

(2002). A reliability generalization study of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 62, 570–589.

Betz

N. E.

(2005). Women’s career development. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 253–277). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Blascovich

Tomaka

(1993). Measures of self-esteem. In Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (3rd ed., pp. 115–160). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Blustein

D. L.

(2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cattell

R. B.

(1952). Factor analysis. New York, NY: Harper.

Crowne

D. P.

Marlowe

(1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358

10.

Diala

C. C.

Muntaner

Walrath

(2004). Gender, occupational, and socioeconomic correlates of alcohol and drug abuse among U.S. rural, metropolitan, and urban residents. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 30, 409–428. doi:10.1081/ada-120037385

11.

Diemer

M. A.

Ali

S. R.

(2009). Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Theory and practice implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 247–265.

12.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

MacCallum

R. C.

Strahan

E. J.

(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.

13.

Feagin

J. R.

(1991). The continuing significance of race: AntiBlack discrimination in public places. American Sociological Review, 56, 101–116. doi:10.2307/2095676

14.

Fischer

A. R.

Shaw

C. M

. (1999). African Americans’ mental health and perceptions of racist discrimination: The moderating effects of racial socialization experiences and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 395–407. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.395

15.

Fortunato

V. J.

Stone-Romero

E. F.

(1999). Taking the strain out of negative affectivity: Development and initial validation of scores on a strain-free measure of negative affectivity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 77–97. doi:10.1177/00131649921969758

16.

Fouad

N. A.

Brown

M. T.

(2000). The role of race and class in development: Implications for counseling psychology. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 379–408). New York, NY: Wiley.

17.

Frable

D. E. S.

(1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 139–162.

18.

Gainor

(2006). Twenty-five years of self-efficacy in career assessment and practice. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 161–178.

19.

Harari

M. J.

Waehler

C. A.

Rogers

J. R

. (2005). An empirical investigation of a theoretically based measure of perceived wellness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 93–103. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.93

20.

Jones

S. J.

(2003). Complex subjectivities: Class, ethnicity, and race in women's narratives of upward mobility. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 803–820.

21.

Klonoff

E. A.

Landrine

(1995). The schedule of sexist events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 439–472.

22.

Klonoff

E. A.

Landrine

(1999). Cross-validation of the schedule of racist events. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 231–254. doi:10.1177/0095798499025002006

23.

Klonoff

E. A.

Landrine

Ullman

J. B

. (1999). Racial discrimination and psychiatric symptoms among blacks. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 329–339. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.5.4.329

24.

Landrine

Klonoff

E. A.

(1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144–168.

25.

Landrine

Klonoff

E. A.

(1997). Discrimination against women: Prevalence, consequences, remedies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Landrine

Klonoff

E. A.

Corral

Fernandez

Roesch

(2006). Conceptualizing and measuring ethnic discrimination in health research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 79–94. doi:10.1007/s10865-005-9029-0

27.

Landrine

Klonoff

E. A.

Gibbs

Manning

Lund

(1995). Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 473–492.

28.

Langhout

R. D.

Drake

Rosselli

(2009). Classism in the university setting: Examining student antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2, 166–181. doi:10.1037/a0016209

29.

Langhout

R. D.

Rosselli

Feinstein

(2007). Assessing classism in academic settings. Review of Higher Education: Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 30, 145–184.

30.

Lautenschlager

G. J.

(1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 365–395.

31.

Lee

R. M.

Dean

B. L.

(Writer). (2004). Middle-class mythology in an age of immigration and segmented assimilation: Implication for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 19–24.

32.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

33.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analyses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.

34.

Liu

W. M.

(2001). Expanding our understanding of multiculturalism: Developing a social class worldview model. The intersection of race, class, and gender in counseling psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

35.

Liu

W. M.

(2002). The social class-related experiences of men: Integrating theory and practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 355–360.

36.

Liu

W. M.

Ali

S. R.

Soleck

Hopps

Dunston

Pickett

Jr (2004). Using social class in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 3–18.

37.

Loo

Loewen

(2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of scores from full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2343–2352.

38.

Lorant

Kampfl

Seghers

Deliège

Closon

M. C.

Ansseau

. (2003). Socio-economic differences in psychiatric in-patient care. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 107, 170–177. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00071

39.

Lovibond

P. F.

Lovibond

S. H.

(1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343. doi:10.1016/0005-7967

40.

Lynch

J. W.

Kaplan

G. A.

Salonen

J. T.

(1997). Why do poor people behave poorly? Variation in adult health behaviours and psychosocial characteristics by stages of the socioeconomic lifecourse. Social Science & Medicine, 44, 809–819. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00191-8

41.

Metz

A. J.

Fouad

N. A.

Ihle Helledy

(2009). Career aspirations and expectations of college students: Demographics and labor market influences. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 155–171.

42.

Navarro

R. L.

Flores

L. Y.

Worthington

R. L.

(2007). Mexican American middle school students’ goal intentions in mathematics and science: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 320–335.

43.

Nelson

M. L.

Englar-Carlson

Tierney

S. C.

Hau

J. M.

(2006). Class jumping into academia: Multiple identities for counseling academics. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 1–14.

44.

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.

45.

Ostrove

J. M.

Long

S. M.

(2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. Review of Higher Education: Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 30, 363–389.

46.

Poulton

Caspi

Milne

Thomson

Taylor

Sears

Moffitt

(2002). Association between children's experience of socioeconomic disadvantage and adult health: a life-course study. Lancet, 360, 1640–1645.

47.

Ritz

S. F.

Hyers

L. L.

(2005). The stigma of poverty: The nature and implications of everyday classism. Poster presented during the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

48.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

49.

Sheu

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Miller

M. J.

Hennessy

K. D.

Duffy

R. D.

(2010). Testing the choice model of social cognitive career theory across Holland themes: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 252–264.

50.

Smith

(2005). Psychotherapy, classism, and the poor: Conspicuous by their absence. American Psychologist, 60, 687–696.

51.

Swanson

J. L.

Daniels

K. K.

Tokar

D. M.

(1996). Assessing perceptions of career-related barriers: The career barriers inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 219–244.

52.

Swim

J. K.

Cohen

L. L.

Hyers

L. L.

(1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination. In Swim

J. K.

Stangor

(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 37–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

53.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

Cohen

L. L.

Ferguson

M. J.

(2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53.

54.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

Cohen

L. L.

Fitzgerald

D. C.

Bylsma

W. H.

(2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 38–67.

55.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

56.

Thompson

M. N.

(2008). Relations of supports and barriers to social status and vocational behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69, 5104.

57.

Thompson

M. N.

Subich

L. M.

(2006). The relation of social status to the career decision-making process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 289–301.

58.

Thompson

M. N.

Subich

L. M.

(2011). Social status identity: Antecedents and vocational outcomes. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 735–763. doi:10.1177/0011000010389828

59.

Williams

W. R

. (2009). Struggling with poverty: Implications for theory and policy of increasing research on social class-based stigma. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 9, 37–56. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01184

60.

Worthington

R. L.

Flores

L. Y.

Navarro

R. L.

(2005). Career development in context: Research with people of color. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 225–252). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.