Status Inconsistency and the Hope Technique, I: The Grounds for a Resurrection

Abstract

This paper attempts a reassessment of status inconsistency theory, methods, and empirical results. Theory: Two distinct kinds of status inconsistency hypotheses are clarified—linear and nonlinear. Although the literature has explicitly acknowledged only nonlinear hypotheses, no logical preference for either linear or nonlinear hypotheses can be drawn from the original theory without changing or adding to its basic statements. A reappraisal of past empirical findings reveals an implicit preference for linear status inconsistency hypotheses. It is urged that linear hypotheses ought to be explicitly acknowledged as an important part of status inconsistency theory. The possibility of theoretical redundancy between status inconsistency theory and socialization is considered and rejected, since the two explanations of rank effects generate opposing predictions of psychological stress. Methods: The most popular method used by past investigators, interaction analysis, is shown to be capable of measuring only nonlinear hypotheses. The method recently offered by Hope is found to be the best method for analyzing status inconsistency. The Hope technique is not only capable of measuring linear hypotheses, but in addition, it incorporates the older method's ability to measure nonlinear hypotheses. Results: A test between the opposing predictions of status inconsistency and socialization favors status inconsistency by a margin of 5 to 1. A general test of status inconsistency on 104 dependent variables confirms the number of nonlinear results reported by Jackson and Curtis, but reveals that linear findings outnumber nonlinear ones by a ratio of almost 4 to 1. A speculative explanation for the better predictability of status inconsistency is offered, and directions for future research are considered.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.