British Journal of Developmental Psychology (1985), 3, 191-198 Printed in Great Britain (D 1985 The British Psychological Society 191 Children's representation of economic inequalities: The effects of social class Nicholas Emler and Julie Dickinson Children aged 7 to 12 and drawn from contrasting social backgrounds made estimates of the incomes of people in different occupations and made judgements about the fairness of income differences. Middle-class children, as compared to working-class children, not only made higher overall estimates of income for all the occupations considered but also perceived a greater spread in incomes and a clearer division between manual and non-manual occupations. Irrespective of their own social class background, a majority of children regarded differences in income as justified on grounds of equity. However, the middle-class children appeared to possess a more extensive rationale for inequality and to be more committed to it. They also seemed more sensitive to other consequences of income differences. The results are discussed in terms of alternative theories of socio-cognitive development. To a greater or lesser extent, inequalities of wealth characterize all contemporary societies. This raises for the social scientist the question why and to what extent are these inequalities tolerated or accepted by the people they affect? Conflict theorists from Marx onwards have argued that those who are relatively disadvantaged by the economic status quo will be more likely to regard it as illegitimate (Dahrendorf, 1959). Functionalist theory, however, assumes that there is a widespread consensus among all groups in society about the justice and desirability of inequality, and that this consensus is generated through processes of socialization (Parsons, 1951). Recently, developmental research has entered this debate (Stacey, 1982). This research has made two contributions. Firstly, it has generally supported the position advocated by functionalist theory, demonstrating that as they grow older children are increasingly likely to accept that inequalities in wealth are legitimate, a trend that does not appear to be affected appreciably by children's own relative positions in the socio-economic system (e.g. Connell, 1977; Leahy, 1983). Secondly, there appears to be a developmental trend towards preference for principles of distributive justice which support an unequal distribution of wealth in society (Hook & Cook, 1979): older children favour the allocation of wealth or resources according to considerations of equity. None the less, certain questions remain unanswered. Most research to date has been concerned with the explanations and justifications that children at different ages give for social and economic inequalities. Rather less attention has been given to children's beliefs about the nature of these inequalities or to the degree of consensus among children from different social backgrounds about the scale of such differences. The study reported here was concerned with these questions. The aim of our research was to compare the income estimates for various occupations made by children with working-class and middle-class backgrounds respectively and to examine their judgements about the income distributions they perceived. The research was conceived within a theoretical framework provided by Moscovici's (1984) concept of social representation. In brief, Moscovici proposes a social-psychological theory of knowledge; he argues that knowledge is socially generated and sustained, that it will be an attribute of collectives rather than individuals, created and disseminated through processes of social influence and interaction. Moscovici further argues that there will be significant variations in the content of people's beliefs as a function of the groups to which they belong and the positions these occupy in society. This analysis contrasts with the cognitive-developmental 192 Nicholas Emler and Julie Dickinson view of social knowledge as essentially an individual cognitive accomplishment and one to which specific social influences contribute nothing of substance (e.g. Turiel, 1983). According to this latter view, insofar as there are social class differences in children's beliefs about society, these will reflect differences in rates of development. From the perspective of Moscovici's analysis, if social class does influence beliefs and judgements it will do so to the degree that different social classes constitute distinctive social environments, that is, to the degree that children in different social classes are immersed in quite dissimilar social worlds. The social class variable has been widely used in research with children but we suspect that the most commonly used index of class, parental occupation, may by itself fail to identify socially distinct groups. Thus, when children are divided into social classes in terms of their parents' occupations but attend the same schools there will be a considerable overlap in their social environments. We argue that, for children, the class environment is likely to be composed of many interrelated elements among which are the parents and the home but also the area they live in, the schools they attend and the other adults and children they encounter. Given that the aim of our research was to study the effects of a clear contrast in social class background it was important to adopt a method of operationalizing social class that would achieve this contrast. We chose to do this in terms of the school each child attended, firstly, because school is potentially a central element of the class environment for children and, secondly, because if the schools are chosen appropriately they will be linked to other important factors contributing to the class environment such as area of residence, type of housing, parental occupation and parental income. Method Sample Half of the sample was drawn from a state primary school in a lower working-class city area. a district in which all of the accommodation was local authority housing. The other half was drawn from a private. fee-paying school in the same city. In terms of the Registrar-General's five-point scale of socio-economic status. parents of children from the state school were almost entirely in social classes III and IV (skilled and semi-skilled manual occupations) whereas the parents of those from the private school were primarily in social class II (small businessmen, etc.). In other words. fathers of the state schoolchildren had traditional working-class jobs while those of the private schoolchildren had middle-class occupations. Children were drawn from the third to the seventh level of the state primary school and from the equivalent years of the private school. In all. 123 children were interviewed. divided into approximately equal proportions between the two schools. between boys and girls, and between the five age levels. At the time of interviewing the average ages at each level were 7·59, 8·80. 9·90.10·79 and 11·84 years respectively. Procedure Children were interviewed individually by either a male or a female experimenter in a room set aside for the purpose in their school. No other children or school staff were present. Each child was first shown pictures of people representing four different occupations -vdoctor. teacher, bus driver and road sweeper. These occupations were chosen to meet two criteria. Firstly. they were intended to represent a spread of income in real terms; the first two were also typically 'white-collar' or middle-class jobs. and the latter two 'blue-collar' or working-class jobs. Secondly. they were chosen as occupations children in this age range would be likely to recognize and. in fact. these children had little difficulty in identifying them. The interviewer first asked various questions about the pictures to familiarize the child with each of the occupations. The interviewer then asked. 'Suppose it is the end of the week and they are going to be paid, how much will each one get paid'?' A stack of 'Monopoly' money in different denominations was provided; the denominations were 1.5.10.20.50 and 100. with nine notes of each denomination. Indicating the range of denominations available and suggesting they could be interpreted as pound sterling values. the interviewer said. 'Let us pretend this is money they could be paid with; show me how much you think each one will gel'. (Children were encouraged to distribute as much 'money' as they thought appropriate to each of the four pictures. The interviewer then checked the numerical totals with them and asked whether they were satisfied that this was definitely what each person would get at the end of the week. They were encouraged to make any adjustments they thought necessary and the interviewer then recorded the totals. If different amounts had been awarded. the following questions were asked: 'Why does [...Jget the most? Why does [...Jget the least?' 'Is it fair that [...J gets more than the others? Why/why not?' If the same amount had Representation 01'economic inequalities 193 been awarded, the questions asked were: 'Should any of them get more than the others'? Why/why not'? Should any of them get less than the others'? Why/why not'?' All children were asked: 'Would it be better/is it better if they all get the same money? Why/why not?' The money was then removed and various other questions asked about the people depicted in the cards. Among these were the following: 'Which one has the nicest house? Why'? Which one has the worst house? Why?' Results Pay estimates The estimates of income can be examined in a number of ways. One is simply to consider the amount attributed to each occupation. As there were no significant differences in the amounts proposed by boys and girls, their estimates are combined in all the analyses. Table I gives the means for each occupation by age and social class. A 2 x 5 x 4 (class x age x occupation) ANOVA was computed with occupation as a within-subject variable. There was a significant between-subjects effect for class (F= 51,47, d.f. = 1,110, P < 0·000 I), but no effect for age (F= 0,64, d.f. = 4,110) and no interaction effect (F= 1·13, d.f. = 4, 110). Table 1. Income estimates" by age and social class Age level" Occupation/class 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 II II 12 X SO X SO X SO X SO X SO Doc/or WC 27·58 15·87 40·76 21·78 41·67 14·67 48·33 27·25 68·92 24·41 MC 149·75 143·10 115·18 83·09 159·58 105·02 161·67 72-80 145·00 79·71 Teacher WC 19·58 10·10 37·69 19·21 42·08 20·83 40-42 19·59 54·08 20·32 MC 135·17 118·90 106·82 67·39 92·92 54·46 120·00 45·78 102·92 45·05 BIIS driver WC 22·50 16·58 34·61 16·64 33·75 15·54 35·33 14·70 58·67 19·64 MC 86·67 83-81 59·00 44·59 56·67 51·51 87·17 38·75 65-83 24·01 Road sweeper WC 25·08 14·30 27·23 12·10 26·25 16·94 29·58 12·51 43·50 11·35 MC 65·58 76·65 61·00 65-40 37·92 30·03 58·33 28·70 62·08 36·52 "Amounts in pounds per week. "n ~ 12 for each age level and social class: the ages reflect the range found within each of the live school years at the time of testing. Turning to within-subject effects, there was a significant effect for occupation (F= 63·56, d.f. = 3,330, P < 0·000 I), but also a significant class x occupation interaction (F= 36,90, d.f. = 3,330, P < 0·000 I). The age x occupation interaction was non-significant (F= 1,02, d.f. = 12,330), as was the three-way interaction (F= 1·10, d.f. = 12,330). Planned comparisons revealed that the estimates for all four occupations differed from one another in the middle-class group at at least P<0·005. In the working-class group the difference between bus driver and teacher was non-significant. The differences between the occupations as a function of class are set out in graphical form in Fig. I. As no age effects were found, estimates across age levels are summed here. From this figure can be seen the much clearer separation made by the middle-class children between the white-collar and blue-collar occupations than by the working-class group. Another way of looking at these estimates is in terms of the ratios between the highest and the lowest paid. Table 2 gives the mean doctor/road sweeper ratios by age and class. Analysis by ANOVA revealed a main effect for class (F=7·79. d.f.= 110,1, P<0·006), but 194 Nicholas Emler and Julie Dickinson 150 125 .... Q) E 0 100o c >- :;< Q) Q) ~ 75 c '"Q) ~ 50 25 O...........,,....---""'T----""T"----..,..--- Road sweeper Bus driver Teacher Doctor Occupation Figure I. Income estimates for each occupation by middle-class and working-class children. e--e, middle class; 0--0. working class. Table 2. Ratios of income estimates for doctor and road sweeper by age and social class Age level - - - - ---------- - - ---- --- - -- - ~ - - - -""-_. ------------- 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 - - - - X SO X SO X SO X SO X SO WC 1·31 0·66 1·91 1·34 2·63 0·67 1·59 0·72 1·61 0·52 MC 3·32 3·25 2·94 2·66 4·79 5·35 2·88 1·22 2·64 1-42 not for age (F= 1·89, d.f. = 110,4). In other words, not only were the middle-class children likely to perceive incomes overall as much higher but they also anticipated greater relative differences between the highest and the lowest paid. Judgements ofpay differences A total of eight children (six we, two MC) awarded identical amounts to all four occupations and so were not asked about the fairness of inequalities. A further six were unable to decide. The responses of the remainder to the question, 'Is it fair that [...] gets more than the others?' were examined by chi square which indicated no significant differences as a function of either age or social class. Responses to the question, 'Is it fair that [...] gets less than the others?' produced a very similar pattern. A slightly larger number indicated that the inequality in this direction was unfair but the difference between Representation ofeconomic inequalities 195 these two questions was not significant. As with responses to the first question, there was a tendency for middle-class children to judge the inequality in this direction as fair more frequently than the working-class children, but this difference was also non-significant. Next an examination was made of estimates of income differences in relation to judgements of fairness. First, the ratio between the highest and lowest income estimate given by each child was calculated. Then, the children in each social class group were divided into those regarding the highest income estimated as fair and those regarding this income as unfair in relation to the others. This gave 2(c1ass) x 2(fairjunfair) table. The mean ratios in each cell of this table were: 2·02 (working class, judging fair), 2·05 (working class, judging unfair), 4·15 (middle class, judging fair), and 2'78 (middle class, judging unfair). The same procedure was repeated but this time dividing the children in each social class according to their judgement of the relative fairness of the lowest income estimated. The corresponding mean ratios were 2,20, 2·01,3'54 and 2·45. ANOVAs on each of the two sets of data revealed not only the anticipated class effect but also significant class x fairness interactions (P < 0,05). Thus middle-class children who judged inequalities to be fair perceived greater differences in income than those who judged them unfair. Among the working-class children there was no difference in perceptions related to differences in judgements. Table 3 gives the distribution of responses to the question, 'Would it be better if they all got the same amount of money?' Overall, this suggestion was significantly more likely to be rejected by the older children (x2= \0,5, d.f.=4, P<0·05) and by the middle-class children (x2= 4·87, d.f. = 1, P < 0,05). An examination of the responses of boys and girls indicated no significant differences in judgements about the fairness of inequalities or in responses to the suggested equality of incomes. Table 3. Reactions to proposed equality of income as a function of age and social class Age level - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- Working class For 7 8 9 8 5 37 Against 4 4 4 4 7 23 Middle class For 9 3 6 4 I 23 Against 2 8 6 8 II 35 Children's justifications for their judgements were categorized in terms of three alternative principles of distributive justice-equality, equity and need-these having previously been found to characterize the judgements of children in this age range (e.g. Damon, 1977). In the event there was very little differentiation among responses in these terms. A majority of children offered reasons that would be categorized as some form of equity consideration; they argued that differences in income were fair because there were differences in the work involved in each job (e.g. 'I think it is (fair) because it is harder to look at somebody's body and sort problems than to sweep the roads' or 'He has to do a lot of training before he starts'). Categorized in terms of the dominant theme in their replies, 71 children gave equity arguments. By comparison, nine gave equality arguments (e.g. 'Not really (fair) because they have to work the same hours ... a road sweeper works just as long as a doctor and spends just as much time and energy as a doctor'), and only four gave need arguments (e.g. 'It depends if they have children or not. If they have a 196 Nicholas Emler and Julie Dickinson family they have to get all the food and clothing for the family'). The remainder either could not offer any reasons (15), or gave a description (17) of one or more of the occupations (e.g. 'He just sweeps up rubbish. He helps everyone get better'), or offered an argument that did not fit into the other categories [e.g. '... (inequalities are) perfectly fair because they all have a choice of which job they want to do and probably take account of how much money they want to have']. Almost all arguments rejecting the proposal that incomes be equal were based on considerations of equity (43) rather than need (3). Arguments in favour were either reiterations that all would get the same (13) or else referred to inputs (10) or consequences (20) (e.g. 'It would give everyone the same chance to buy the same things .. .' or 'So there will not be any squabbling'). A few children again offered descriptions of one or more occupations or could offer no reasons. There were no significant age trends or sex differences in the kinds of arguments offered either with respect to perceived inequalities or in response to proposed equality. There were also no class differences in preferences for particular principles of distributive justice. None the less, closer examination of the kinds of reasons children were offering did suggest that there may be differences between the middle- and working-class children in their thinking about income distributions. There were three differences in particular. Firstly, working-class children were more likely to offer descriptions in support of their judgements (14 vs. 3: X2=6'84, d.f.= I, P