Updating Occupational Prestige and Socioeconomic Scores: How The New Measures Measure Up

Full text

Updating Occupational Prestige and Socioeconomic Scores: How the New Measures Measure up
Author(s): Keiko Nakao and Judith Treas
Source:
Sociological Methodology,
Vol. 24 (1994), pp. 1-72
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/270978 .
Accessed: 04/04/2011 16:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Methodology.
http://www.jstor.org

a1^
UPDATING OCCUPATIONAL
PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES: HOW THE NEW
MEASURES MEASURE UP
Keiko Nakao"
Judith Treast
A quarter century replication of occupational prestige studies
from the 1960s permitted the development of new occupational
prestige and socioeconomic status scales keyed to the 1980 occu-
pational classification system. This paper describes the design
of the 1989 General Social Survey module on occupational
prestige and evaluates the quality of its data. The new scale is
shown to diverge from earlier scales in small, but systematic,
ways. Substantive analyses based on respondents in the 1989
survey explore the practical implications of scale differences.
Occupational prestige scores and the socioeconomic status scores
derived from them rank among the most durable and widely used
measures in the sociologist's arsenal. A landmark inquiry carried out
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant
#SES-8809289. We are indebted to NORC and to the Principal Investigators
and Board of Overseers of the General Social Surveys for making possible the
data collection. We acknowledge with great fondness the contributions of the
late Robert W. Hodge, who initiated this study and contributed a wealth of
experience to its design. We wish to thank the editor and reviewers of Sociologi-
cal Methodology who offered many constructive suggestions. The excellent re-
search assistance of Hsinmu Chen is acknowledged.
*University of New Mexico
tUniversity of California, Irvine
1

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in the 1960s sup-
plied the data for scales used for two decades. Passage of a quarter
century raises inevitable questions about how gracefully these mea-
sures have aged. Have subtle changes in the public's evaluation of
the social standing of various occupations undermined our mea-
sures? How much error crept in with the decennial efforts to jury-rig
old prestige scores to fit new occupational classification systems intro-
duced by the U.S. Bureau of the Census? New prestige data from the
1989 NORC General Social Survey (GSS) present the first opportu-
nity to address these questions.
After sketching the history of prestige and related socioeco-
nomic scores, this paper describes the design of the 1989 study, the con-
struction of new measures for prestige and socioeconomic status, and
the evaluation of the new prestige scale in light of earlier efforts. New
and old sets of prestige scores differ in systematic ways-when the pres-
tige data were collected, whether scores refer to specific occupational
titles or their more generic detailed occupational categories, which oc-
cupational classification system they represent, and whether data
were collected for that particular classification or reworked to fit it.
Comparisons of score sets demonstrate that shifts in public
opinion have indeed registered on prestige scales. In contrast, the
substantial changes in the occupational classification systems have had
little effect on prestige measures. The error introduced by averaging
occupational title scores to obtain scores for occupational categories
accounts for some differences observed between score sets. When the
occupations of survey respondents are considered, occupational cod-
ing error compounds existing scale differences. Despite temporal
change and methodological factors differentiating scales, the occupa-
tional hierarchy is so robust that interscale correlations remain remark-
ably high, and different scales tend to produce similar results in sub-
stantive applications. The superiority of the new scale based on new
ratings argues for its use with contemporary occupational data.
1. BACKGROUND
While Counts (1925), Neitz (1935), and Smith (1943) contributed
significant work on the social standing of occupations, the modern
study of occupational prestige dates from a 1947 inquiry carried out
by NORC under the direction of Cecil North and Paul Hatt (Reiss
2

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC SCORES
1961). Although the quota sampling procedures that the study em-
ployed fall short of today's standards, no previous investigation
could claim so large and nationally representative
a sample.
Although usual tasks and responsibilities
define an occupation,
a number of different occupational
titles
may be employed to refer to
the same occupation (e.g., doctor, physician).
The North-Hatt
respon-
dents rated 90 occupational
titles (e.g., civil engineer, clerk in a store).
Although this made for fairly extensive coverage of the occupational
distribution, prestige evaluations were unavailable for thousands of
other occupational
titles not included
in the North-Hatt
survey.
Fortu-
nately, the U.S. Bureau of the Census
employed an
occupational
classi-
fication system that aggregated
similar
occupational
titles into several
hundred detailed occupational categories. For example, "Nightwatch-
man" was assigned with related titles to the "Guards,
Watchmen,
and
Doorkeepers" category. Thus thousands
of occupation
titles could be
reduced to several hundred
generic detailed occupational categories.
The 1950 Census of Population reported characteristics of
workers by detailed occupational category. To create a Socioeco-
nomic Index (SEI) for All Occupations, Duncan (1961) exploited
North-Hatt prestige information on a limited set of occupational
titles together with socioeconomic census data on all detailed occupa-
tional categories. Duncan regressed prestige indicators for 45 titles
on age-standardized education and income characteristics
of male
occupational incumbents in the 1950 Census of Population. This gen-
erated an equation for imputing prestige to all detailed occupational
categories-even those whose titles were not evaluated by North-
Hatt survey respondents.
Keyed to the established occupational classification
system of
the U.S. Bureau of the Census, this index filled the need for a simple
measure of social status-one better suited to big, national surveys
of an urban, mass society than were existing multidimensional
mea-
sures grounded in small community studies. Also ensuring its wide-
spread adoption was the fact that the SEI permitted researchers
to
capitalize on new analytic methods demanding interval-level mea-
surement. Sociologists routinely updated SEI scores to meet the de-
mands of the research community. For example, Blau and Duncan
(1967) linked Duncan's SEI scores, pegged to the occupational
classi-
fication system of the 1950 Census of Population, to the 1960 occupa-
tional classification.
3

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
Of course, the SEI was not a prestige scale, and it proved to
have somewhat different properties than occupational prestige
(Hodge 1981; Featherman and Hauser 1976; Treas and Tyree 1979).
Siegel (1971) constructed the first prestige scale for all occupations
from national sample surveys carried out at NORC in 1963, 1964,
and 1965 by Peter H. Rossi, Robert W. Hodge, and Paul M. Siegel.
Siegel constructed the scale with pooled data from five separate
studies via the evaluation of occupational titles common to all the
surveys.
Although biased in a number of ways, the titles from the
surveys of the 1960s provided better coverage of the full occupational
range than did the 1947 North-Hatt study, which was dominated by
high-status professional and low-status service occupations. Siegel's
new prestige data enabled Stevens and Featherman (1981) to calcu-
late a revised SEI based on 1970 detailed occupational characteristics
and keyed to the 1970 Census categories. These new SEI scores for
1970 categories were eventually linked to the very different 1980
classification by Stevens and Cho (1985).
Siegel's prestige scores were a unique accomplishment serving
the social science community for two decades. Even today, relatively
few countries (e.g., Israel) have a complete set of national prestige
scores identified in a detailed, well-documented scheme for coding
occupational information (Kraus 1976). Prestige scores based on
NORC data of the 1960s serve as the backbone of Treiman's (1977)
International Prestige Scale, which merges survey data from many
societies to create a common metric for comparing different coun-
tries. Although an alternative approach to measuring occupational
status has been developed in Great Britain (Goldthorpe and Hope
1974) and applied in Italy in modified form (de Lillo and Schiz-
zerotto 1985), the methods used in U.S. studies of the 1960s remain a
primary standard for evaluating all other inquiries.
Siegel's prestige scores, based on the 1960s Census system for
classifying occupations, were modified slightly to conform to the
1970 classification schema by NORC (Davis and Smith 1991) as well
as by Hauser and Featherman (1977). This updating was readily
accomplished, because changes in the classification system between
1960 and 1970 mostly involved shifting particular job titles from one
category to another or splitting old categories to form new ones.
Creating scores for the 1980 classification system was more compli-
4

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC SCORES 5
cated because the 1980 schema departed markedly from the 1970
classification system. Occupational categories were split and recom-
bined in complex ways. Fewer than one-third of the 1970 detailed
occupational categories-covering only 15 percent of the labor
force-mapped to one and only one detailed occupational category
in 1980 (Treiman, Bielby, and Cheng 1989). To accommodate the
change from 1970 to 1980 classifications, Stevens and Hoisington
(1987) recalibrated prestige scores. They estimated 1980 scores by
weighting the old scores by the size of the labor force in the 1970
categories as they mapped into the 1980 categories.
Researchers have demonstrated considerable inventiveness in
developing and adapting prestige and socioeconomic scores. None-
theless, their efforts to create and maintain viable measurement tools
have undoubtedly introduced some degree of random or systematic
error. From the beginning, sociologists have accepted some un-
known error arising from a less than representative selection of occu-
pational titles imperfectly matched with occupational categories. As
the years have passed, additional error has probably crept in, be-
cause old scores have had to be reworked to fit new occupational
classifications.
Because a quarter century has elapsed since the prestige evalua-
tions were collected, shifts in American public opinion have also com-
promised the scales to a greater or lesser extent. Occupational ratings
are known to be extraordinarily stable over time. Ratings, however,
do change; the classic article that demonstrated the stability in occupa-
tional prestige also noted the rise in the status of scientific occupa-
tions, the "free" professions, and blue-collar occupations at the ex-
pense of artistic, cultural, and communications occupations (Hodge,
Siegel, and Rossi 1964). Only by collecting and analyzing new prestige
data can we assess how robust our prestige and socioeconomic scales
have been to methodological expedience and social change.
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
The 1989 NORC General Social Survey asked a nationally represen-
tative sample of noninstitutionalized adults to evaluate the prestige
of occupational titles.1 To enhance comparability with previous stud-
1See Davis and Smith (1992) for a general introduction to the design of
the General Social Survey.

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
ies, the task and instructions were virtually identical to the 1964
benchmark survey used by Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi. The NORC
interviewer asked each respondent to evaluate 110 occupations ac-
cording to their "social standing." The evaluation involved sorting
small cards, each bearing one occupational title, onto a cardboard
sheet displaying a nine-rung ladder of social standing (from "1" for
the lowest possible social standing to "9" for the highest possible).
Appendix A displays this ladder and selected cards. Appendix B
shows the interviewer's instructions from the GSS instrument.
The 1989 data collection departs from earlier studies in two
significant ways. First, since the GSS allocated only 15 minutes of
interview time to the task, each respondent was asked to rate 110 titles
as opposed to 204 in the 1964 inquiry. Second, the research design
employed subsamples to achieve coverage of the detailed occupa-
tional categories. The design called for the 1500 individuals in the GSS
sample to be assigned randomly to 12 subsamples of 125 respondents
each. Of 12 subsamples, ten rated occupational prestige, and two
rated ethnic prestige for a related study. The GSS presented each
subsample with a common core of 40 occupational titles (from the
benchmark 1964 survey) whose order, while random, was the same
across subsamples. This was followed by a randomly ordered and
randomly assigned set of 70 titles unique to the subsample.2
The 1989 GSS achieved a sample size of 1537, including the
1166 respondents who rated occupational titles. Total item non-
response (the average percent of "don't knows" and missing data for
all occupational titles) was 6.2 percent in the 1989 GSS as compared
with 4.0 percent in the benchmark 1964 study. Since the overlapping
sample design of the 1989 survey permitted 740 titles to be rated as
opposed to 204 in the 1964 study, the new survey probably included
more occupations that were unfamiliar and, hence, harder to rate.
However, the 1989 survey shows a higher nonresponse rate (4.8
percent versus 3.2 percent) even for the core of 40 titles rated in both
surveys (Nakao and Treas 1990).
We selected the 740 occupational titles to ensure reasonable
2The order in which titles appeared did not influence ratings. Correla-
tions between prestige scores and order were not statistically significant. Neither
were associations detected between the order in which a title appeared and its
standard deviation; this indicates respondents did not grow careless as they
fatigued of the task nor did they gain confidence and consistency.
6

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC SCORES
coverage of the 503 detailed occupational categories of the 1980
census classification system while incorporating, where appropriate,
titles evaluated in earlier studies (i.e., the 1963 replication of the
North-Hatt study, the 1964 Hodge-Siegel-Rossi study, and three sup-
plementary studies carried out by NORC in 1965). We traced each
previously rated title to its entry under a detailed occupational cate-
gory of the 1980 Classified Index of Industries and Occupations (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1982). After this matching, we chose for the
1989 survey one or more previously rated titles from each detailed
occupational category. In the interest of replication, we selected pre-
viously rated titles only when they met certain criteria. We judged
the titles selected (1) to be familiar to the American public, (2) to
represent the category reasonably well in terms of tasks, and (3) to
employ a nontrivial proportion of the labor force (e.g., "Lawyer"
was rated, but not "U.S. Supreme Court Justice").
Selections yielded a common core of 40 familiar titles rated by
all respondents. Drawn from the 1964 study, these core titles mir-
rored the distribution of the labor force across the six major group-
ings for detailed occupational categories in 1980. One or another
subsample evaluated other previously rated titles. They included 123
titles from the 1964 study as well as 124 titles from the other four
studies. Since some detailed occupational categories were not well
represented by titles from earlier studies, we added 453 new titles to
cover remaining detailed categories or to carry out wording experi-
ments.3 While necessarily subjective, three investigators and several
independent consultants reviewed our title choices.
3. CONSTRUCTING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS SCALES
In calculating prestige scores for occupational titles, we followed the
procedure used for the 1960s' data. With the following formula, we
converted and scored ratings over the nine rungs of the ladder of
3With respect to gender-specific titles, the study (1) used gender-neutral
titles wherever feasible (e.g., "Mail Carrier," not "Mailman"), (2) included
gender-specific titles from previous studies ("Waiter" and "Waitress") where
they contributed to replication, and (3) included several experiments (e.g., rat-
ing "TV Anchorwoman," "TV Anchorman," and "TV Anchorperson") to test
for effects of gendered wording on prestige evaluations. No systematic bias in
ratings by gender wording was found over eight pairs of gendered titles.
7

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
social standing in 12.5 point intervals so that the prestige scores
would have a logical range from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest).4'5
9
Pj= , (12.5) (i - 1) Xj, for all j
i=l
where Xji is the proportion of ratings received by the jth occupation
that fell on the ith rung of the ladder, with the rungs being organized
in ascending order from the lowest (i.e., 1) to the highest (i.e., 9).
Given prestige scores for 740 specific occupational titles, we
assigned scores to the 503 detailed occupational categories of the
1980 Census. We devised procedures for three kinds of categories:
(1) those for which a single title had been rated, (2) those for which
multiple titles had been rated, and (3) those for which no titles had
been rated.6
4High subsample agreement justifies combining subsample responses
into a single prestige scale. Since previous research shows high consensus across
population subgroups on the rankings of occupations (Hodge and Rossi 1978),
subsample similarity is to be expected. Respondents were randomly assigned to
subsamples, and each subsample was large enough, given the inter-rater reliabil-
ity of prestige ratings, to ensure high correlations between subsamples. There is
no serious evidence that the subsamples rated occupations differently, at least on
the 40 titles common to all subsamples (Nakao and Treas 1990). For example, no
subsample differed significantly (at the 0.05 level) from the total with respect to
either its mean or standard deviation.
sThe ratings of 41 respondents correlated negatively (i.e., -0.006 to
-0.975) with those of the overall sample. These "reversals" represented 3.5
percent of cases versus 2.0 in 1964. It would be reasonable to delete the reversal
cases from the computation of scores if there were evidence that these responses
were errors, rather than genuinely contrarian views. We found no such evidence.
The reversing respondents could not be traced to a small number of interviewers
systematically mispacking the cards or giving confused instructions to respon-
dents. Nor did reversals come from respondents likely to have trouble under-
standing the task; reversing respondents showed no lower verbal skill than the
rest of the sample on a ten-item vocabulary test. We are left with two possible
sources of reversals: (1) random interview or data entry error and (2) respon-
dents whose views really do differ from those of the general public. We opted to
retain contrarian outliers in the interest of comparability with the procedures
employed by Siegel. With their inclusion, the mean of the inter-rater correla-
tions calculated over all pairs of respondents for the 40 common titles is 0.40.
Without the reversals, the correlation is 0.45.
60f the rated titles, 23 could not be coded into detailed occupational
categories. These included military titles and titles like "housewife," which are
not categorized by the occupational classification system of the U.S. Bureau of
the Census. They also included fictitious ringers (i.e., "fooser" and "per-
sologist") and general referents (e.g., "my own occupation").
8

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
We judged 360 detailed occupational categories to have con-
stituent titles so homogeneous in task and socioeconomic characteris-
tics as to be adequately represented by a single occupational title.
For example, one title-"Electrician"-represents the detailed cate-
gory of "Electricians."
For homogeneous categories, which typically
encompassed relatively few workers, the category score was the
score of its rated title. Since we judged 99 categories to be mixed
with respect to task and social standing, respondents rated two or
more titles for such heterogeneous categories. These categories are
often "not elsewhere classified" (N.E.C.) categories consisting of
jobs with too few incumbents to justify separate categories. For ex-
ample, "Cigarette-Making
Machine Operator," "Paper-Making
Ma-
chine Tender," and "Pill Machine Operator in a Pharmaceutical
Plant" were rated for the detailed occupational category, "Miscella-
neous and Not Specified Machine Operators, N.E.C." For the cate-
gory score, we calculated the unweighted mean of scores for these
three rated titles. Of course, scores for specific
titles within heteroge-
neous categories are apt to be imprecise.
Respondents rated no titles for 44 detailed occupational cate-
gories. These categories employed few workers and involved tasks
largely duplicating those in categories that were covered by rated
titles. Thirty categories without rated titles involved postsecondary
teachers who were categorized according to the specific subject mat-
ter taught (e.g., sociology teachers, foreign language teachers). We
judged college professors to be too similar (in terms of educational
credentials, income, and what they actually did on the job) to justify
devoting 4 percent of titles rated to a mere 0.06 percent of the labor
force. We assigned these categories the score for the generic "Col-
lege Professor" title.7 Similarly, we assigned the title score for "Super-
visor of Skilled Craftsmen" to five craft-specific supervisor categories
(e.g., "Supervisors, Carpenters and Related Work"). When a cate-
7We
apparently
underestimated the public's
awareness of prestige
differ-
ences among college professors. As an experiment, ten subject-specific post-
secondary titles were rated. Their scores were: Professor of Mathematics (78),
Professor of Physics in a College or University (75), Professor of Biology in a
College or University (74), Professor of Psychology in a College or University
(74), Professor of History (73), Professor of English (72), Professor of Business
Administration in a College or University (71), Professor of Foreign Languages
(70), Professor of Social Work in a College or University (66), and Professor of
Drama (62).
9

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
gory contained titles thought to be unfamiliar to most Americans, we
assigned a score from a category similar in task content. For exam-
ple, the "Underwriters" category took its score from the "Other
Financial Officers" category.
After we assigned preliminary category scores, we repeatedly
evaluated title-category matches and checked scores for consistency
with similar categories. To take one example, we dropped the
"Nurse Practitioner" title from the calculation of its "Registered
Nurse" category score; an anomalously low rating suggested that
respondents may have confused this highly trained nursing occupa-
tion with less skilled practical nurses. These final checks involved
our subjective judgments, but sociologists are known to evaluate
occupations in much the same way the general public does (Hart-
man 1979).
With the scores in hand for the 1980 occupational codes, we
developed codes for the 1990 occupational classification system.
The 1990 schema closely approximates the 1980 system. Six new
categories were created by merging categories from 1980, another
six new categories grew out of splits of 1980 categories, and 15
existing categories received new code numbers. We created a score
for each new category by averaging scores for rated occupational
titles falling within the category. Since no 1980-1990 transition ma-
trix between categories is available at this time, it is not possible to
pursue the strategy of Stevens and Hoisington (1987)-averaging
original category scores weighted by their labor force share in the
new category.
The remaining task was calculating socioeconomic scores for
all detailed occupational categories from the regression of new pres-
tige evaluations on occupational characteristics available from the
1980 Census of Population (Nakao and Treas 1992). As the prestige
indicator employed as the dependent variable, we chose the propor-
tion of respondents giving a rating on the fifth or higher rung of the
ladder of social standing. This cut-off best discriminated occupations
in the middle of the prestige order, as evidenced by an elongated "S"
shape for the plot of the proportion rating "5 or above" against the
corresponding prestige score. Categories covered by one title re-
ceived that title's proportion. We assigned categories with multiple
titles rated their unweighted mean proportion.
We report SEI scores based on occupational characteristics for
10

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
the total labor force. For 500 detailed occupational categories,8 we
regressed the prestige indicator on the age-standardized proportion of
occupational incumbents with one or more years of college in 1980 and
the age-standardized proportion with personal incomes of $15,000 or
more in 1979.9 The result was an SEI prediction equation:
SEI = 9.24 + 0.64 (Education) + 0.31 (Income).
On the basis of this equation, socioeconomic scores were com-
puted for each of the detailed categories of the 1980 occupational
classification.10
Appendix C details the changes between the 1980 and 1990
occupational classifications and reports scores developed for the new
1990 categories. Prestige and socioeconomic scores for all detailed
occupational categories from the 1980 occupational classification sys-
tem appear in Appendix D along with the prestige ratings for each of
their constituent occupational titles. Scores for. 1980 are also avail-
able in machine-readable form from the data archives of the Inter-
8No prestige cut-off could be established for three apprentice categories
that were not rated.
9As a source of data on the socioeconomic characteristics of detailed
occupational categories, the 1980 Census of Population is obviously not as close
in time to the 1989 GSS survey as its 1990 counterpart. To the extent subjective
evaluations of occupations lag their objective characteristics, this is not particu-
larly problematic. Although data from the 1990 Census of Population were not
available to inform the present analyses, they can be used to update the SEI to
the 1990 occupational classification.
1?We
calculated several other sets of SEI scores for comparison. Follow-
ing Duncan (1961), we considered only the characteristics of the male labor
force. We also carried out calculations using actual prestige scores, rather than
proportions. The results were quite comparable. We prefer the scores for the
total labor force calculated from the proportion of respondents rating an occupa-
tion at 5 or above.
First, estimates based on the total labor force yielded lower standard
errors and higher R-squares than did those based on males alone; by contrast,
calculations with 1960s prestige data and 1970 occupational characteristics fa-
vored the male-based SEI over the total-based SEI on the criterion of explained
variance (Stevens and Featherman 1981). Given their increased rates of labor
force participation, the omission of women would represent a more serious
distortion of the characteristics of contemporary occupations than was the case
in earlier decades. Second SEI scales based on the proportion of ratings at 5 or
higher displayed greater variation than those derived from prestige scores them-
selves. Thus, in addition to closer consistency with Duncan's procedure, the
fifth-rung cut-off produced a scale with the desirable measurement property of
better discriminating various occupations.
11

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
University Consortium of Political and Social Research. Appendix E
shows scores for titles which, while rated, were not included in the
calculation of category scores.
4. OF SCALES AND CHANGE
To promote comparability with previous scales, the new Nakao-Treas
prestige scale replicates the benchmark surveys of the 1960s in signifi-
cant matters of survey design and scale construction. Given this op-
erational comparability, the new prestige scale is to be preferred over
earlier scales for contemporary (if not necessarily historical) re-
search. It has the advantage of being based on the occupational
evaluations of contemporary Americans. Furthermore, we explicitly
designed the 1989 survey to obtain evaluations of occupational titles
representing the detailed occupational categories of the 1980 occupa-
tional classification system-a system departing from earlier sche-
mata and serving as the template for later ones. Unlike other scales,
the new scale takes into account a quarter century's change in public
opinion, but it does not bear the marks of a major revision in the
occupational classification system or any errors introduced by linking
different systems to rework old scores to fit new categories. Al-
though arguments for the superiority of the new prestige scale are
compelling, comparisons between the new standard and the earlier
scales permit further assessments.
Since the various sets of prestige scores differ from one an-
other in systematic ways, we can attribute a lack of correspondence
between score sets to these systematic differences. Sets of scores
differ in four significant ways:
1. Whether they are based on scores taken directly from rated
occupational titles or on the scores calculated for detailed occu-
pational categories associated with those titles
2. Whether they are based on data collected in the 1960s or in 1989
3. Whether the category scores are keyed to the detailed occupa-
tional classification for 1960, 1970, or 1980
4. Whether category scores are based on ratings explicitly collected
for the classification or on old scores reworked to a new classifi-
cation system.
12

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
Because these differences capture
real and artifactual
changes
in occu-
pational prestige measures, they are of pragmatic
interest to research-
ers who will deal with occupational data from several points in time.
Table 1 summarizes the four systematic differences for six dif-
ferent sets of prestige scores: Nakao and Treas's
scores for titles and
for 1980 categories, Siegel's (1971) scores for titles and for 1960
categories, NORC's reworking to 1970 categories (Davis and Smith
1991), and Stevens and Hoisington's (1987) reworking
to 1980
catego-
ries. Although this analysis emphasizes prestige, three sets of socio-
economic scores are also considered: Stevens and Featherman's
(1981) SEI based on 1960s evaluations and the socioeconomic charac-
teristics of total labor force in 1970 categories, Stevens and Cho's
(1985) update to 1980 categories, and the Nakao and Treas (1992)
SEI scores for 1980 categories as based on 1989 prestige evaluations
and 1980 socioeconomic characteristics.
Because SEI scores are dis-
tinct from prestige scores, they clarify some of the conceptual and
methodological underpinnings
of the prestige scales.
Comparing paired sets of prestige scores points up the various
sources of prestige scale differences:
1. For any set of titles common to both studies, Nakao-Treas and
Siegel title scores will differ only in terms of when the data were
collected. Differences between the two scales represent change
in Americans' evaluations of the prestige of occupations.11
2. Within both the Nakao-Treas and Siegel scores, any disparity
between a title's score and the score of its category results from
averaging titles to create category scores.
3. Given a common data source, category prestige scores from
Siegel, NORC, and Stevens-Hoisington can differ due to inher-
ent differences in the classification
systems employed and/or er-
rors in reworking existing scores to a new classification.
1This
interpretation assumes that the scores are not sensitive to minor
survey design differences between the 1964 and 1989 surveys (e.g., context
effects, number of titles rated, sampling design). Our analyses found no context
effects. For example, subsample comparisons showed that the scores for the
common 40 titles were not affected when the 1989 GSS respondents were asked
to rate illegal occupations like "Prostitute" or "Street Corner Drug Dealer."
Although we cannot reject the possibility of design effects, prestige measure-
ment has proven highly robust to even more striking differences in data collect-
ing procedures than those between the 1964 and 1989 surveys (Nakao 1992).
13

TABLE 1
Characteristics of Occupational Scores
Category Prestige Original or
Prestige or Title Data Census Reworked
or SEI Scores Collection Classification Classification
1. Siegel Prestige Title 1964
2. Nakao-Treas Prestige Title 1989
3. Siegel Prestige Category 1963-5 1960 Original
4. NORC Prestige Category 1963-5 1970 Reworked
5. Stevens-Hoisington Prestige Category 1963-5 1980 Reworked
6. Nakao-Treas Prestige Category 1989 1980 Original
7. Stevens-Featherman SEI Category 1963-5 1970 Reworked
8. Stevens-Cho SEI Category 1963-5 1980 Reworked
9. Nakao-Treas SEI Category 1989 1980 Original
Sources.
1,3:
Seigel 1971;
2.6: Nakao
and
Treas
1990;
4: NORC
1989;
5: Stevens
and
Hoisington
1987;
7: Stevens
and
Featherman
1981;
8: Stevens
and
Cho 1985;
9: Nakao
and
Treas
1992.
4-

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
4. Although the Stevens-Hoisington prestige scores utilize the
same 1980 occupational classification
system as the Nakao-Treas
scores, the two scales may diverge because of temporal change
in occupational evaluations, error in reworking scores to the
1980 classification system, and posssibly period-specific and/or
classification-specific
differences in title averaging
effects.
To evaluate the impact of these systematic
differences
between
score sets, analysis
focuses on title and category
scores associated with
160 occupational titles rated in both 1964 and 1989.12 Intercor-
relations, means, standard
deviations, minimums,
and maximums
ap-
pear in Table 2 for prestige and SEI score sets based on these 160
titles.
4.1. Change in Occupational Prestige
Evaluations
The best indication of stability and change in Americans' assess-
ments of occupational prestige is based on the direct comparison of
title scores for 160 occupational titles rated in both 1964 and 1989.
Table 2 shows that the product moment correlation between Siegel
and Nakao-Treas title scores is 0.97. This is a remarkable
demonstra-
tion of the overall stability in the prestige order-approaching the
0.99 reported by Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi (1964) for a smaller set of
titles over the 1947-1963 period. This stability is not unexpected
given what we know about the underpinnings
of prestige evaluations.
In good measure, respondents' subjective prestige evaluations reflect
what they know about the objective characteristics of occupations
(e.g., their educational requirements, remuneration, workplace au-
thority,
working conditions), and workers are very successful in main-
taining the relative advantages of their occupations over time.
Given this high correlation over a quarter century, we would
hardly expect changing public opinion to register on prestige scales.
However, the distribution of prestige scores over 160 occupational
titles does evidence some change. The lowest score rose from 13.7 to
19.1, the mean moved up from 45.2 to 47.5, and the standard
devia-
12A comparison of scales must rest on titles common to both, but titles
rated in the 1960s may well be a less adequate representation of the 1980 occupa-
tional classification than the 1960 classification they were selected to match. This
would confound comparisons between Stevens-Hoisington scores and the cate-
gory scores of Siegel and Nakao-Treas.
15

TABLE 2
Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Selected Sets of Prestige and Socioeconomic Scores Based on 160 Occupa-
tional Titles and Their Associated Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1. Siegel Titles 1.00
2. Nakao-Treas Titles 0.97 1.00
3. Siegel Prestige 0.97 0.94 1.00
4. NORC Prestige 0.95 0.92 0.97 1.00
5. Stevens-Hoisington Prestige 0.93 0.90 0.97 0.97 1.00
6. Nakao-Treas Prestige 0.91 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.94 1.00
7. Stevens-Featherman SEI 0.88 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.84 1.00
8. Stevens-Cho SEI 0.85 0.83 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.88 0.96 1.00
9. Nakao-Treas SEI 0.86 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.93 0.97 1.00
mean 45.2 47.5 44.5 43.9 44.3 46.4 42.2 41.5 52.5
s.d. 17.3 15.8 16.3 15.4 15.6 14.9 22.1 21.7 20.8
min. 13.7 19.1 15.3 15.0 15.8 19.4 13.1 14.5 17.1
max. 82.4 86.1 81.5 82.0 81.1 86.1 87.1 88.4 97.2
See Table 1 for
description
of scales

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
tion declined from 17.3 to 15.8. Other analyses also undermine the
notion of bedrock stability in occupational prestige. Table 3 lists the
160 titles by major occupational grouping and by whether they
moved up in prestige, moved down in prestige, or stayed the same
between 1964 and 1989. There was no upending of the prestige lad-
der, but a startling number of occupational titles saw their prestige
change. Of the 160 occupational titles, fully 71 (44 percent) experi-
enced a statistically significant change (p < 0.05) in prestige score
between 1964 and 1989 (Nakao and Treas
1991). For example, "Com-
puter Programmer"
and "Longshoreman"
moved up while "Banker"
and "Draftsman" moved down. In general, the prestige of occupa-
tional titles rose. Occupational
titles gaining prestige points outnum-
bered those losing prestige by 57 to 14.
Upgrading did not characterize all rungs of the prestige lad-
der. The picture for white collar major occupational groupings
was
mixed; whether we consider the managerial
and professional
special-
ties or the technical, sales, and administrative support grouping,
some occupational titles gained and others lost prestige. For blue-
collar occupational titles, however, the picture is almost uniformly
one of prestige gains. Surprisingly,
titles in the service, laborer, and
farming
groupings were more likely to move up than to stay put.
Of course, the major occupational groupings are themselves
quite heterogeneous in terms of the prestige of their constituent
occupations. Was it really occupational titles on the botton rungs of
the prestige ladder that benefitted most from the upgrading
of pres-
tige scores? Figure 1 graphs the average changes in prestige points
for occupational titles arrayed by ten-point intervals of 1989 scores.
As the graph shows, lower-status occupational
titles did gain dispro-
portionately from the upgrading. The American public no longer
viewed workers at the bottom of the occupational
ladder as being so
distant from those on the middle rungs.
The growing prestige of low-status occupational titles is an
extraordinary
development warranting
serious study in its own right.
It is all the more remarkable because it runs counter to socioeco-
nomic trends in the workforce and workplace-the growing
inequal-
ity of earnings, the decline of unionized blue collar employment, the
influx of traditionally
devalued workers like women and immigrants,
and the absence of systematic skill upgrading
for blue-collar
workers.
While there was no revolution in the perceived prestige order, signifi-
17

18
TABLE 3
Occupational Prestige Score Changes, 1964-1989*
Upward Unchanged Downward
Managerial and Professional Specialty Occupations
Accountant
Ballet Dancer
Biologist
Chemist
Economist
Jazz Musician
Motel Owner
Physician
Professional Athlete
Public Grade School
Teacher
Registered Nurse
Advertising
Executive
Aeronautical
Engineer
Architect
Author
Chiropractor
City Manager
Civil Engineer
Clergyman
College or University
President
Commercial Artist
Druggist
Engineer
Funeral Director
General Manager of
a Manufacturing
Plant
High School Teacher
Journalist
Lawyer
Mathematician
Mayor of a Large
City
Member of a City
Council
Merchandise Buyer
for a Department
Store
Mining Engineer
Musician in a Sym-
phony Orchestra
Owner of a Manufac-
turing Plant
Physicist
Playground Director
Priest
Professionally
Trained Librarian
Professionally
Trained Forester
Banker
College Professor
Department Head
in a State
Government
Electrical Engineer
Job Counselor
Justice of a Munici-
pal Court
Lunchroom
Operator
Public Relations Man

19
Psychiatrist
Psychologist
School
Superintendent
Social Worker
Social Scientist
Statistician
Surveyor
TV Announcer
TV Director
Technical, Sales, and Administrative Support
Computer Programmer
File Clerk
Medical Technician
Newspaper Peddler
Owner of a Food Store
Sales Clerk in a Store
Shipping Clerk
Astronaut
Bill Collector
Bookkeeper
Cashier in a Super-
market
Clerk in an Office
Insurance Agent
Insurance Claims
Investigator
Mailman
Manager of a Real
Estate Office
Manager of a
Supermarket
Manufacturer's
Representative
Post Office Clerk
Railroad Ticket
Agent
Real Estate Agent
Receptionist
Sales Engineer
Secretary
Service Station
Manager
Stenographer
Stockroom
Attendant
Technician
Telephone Operator
Travel Agent
Truck Dispatcher
Wholesale
Distributor
Bank Teller
Draftsman
Telephone Solicitor
Typist
Used Car Salesman

20
TABLE 3 (continued)
Occupational Prestige Score Changes, 1964-1989*
Upward Unchanged Downward
Service Occupations
Bartender
Cook in a Restaurant
Elevator Operator in a
Building
Fireman
Housekeeper in a
Private Home
Janitor
Laundress
Policeman
Professional Babysitter
Soda Jerk
Waitress in a
Restaurant
Beauty Operator
Hospital Attendant
Secret Service Agent
Precision Productions, Craft, and Repair
Airplane Mechanic
Automobile Repairman
Coal Miner
House Carpenter
House Painter
Power Lineman
Pump-House Engineer
Superintendent of a
Construction Job
Baker
Bricklayer
Building Contractor
Butcher in a Store
Construction
Foreman
Custom Seamstress
Electrician
Foreman in a
Factory
Machinist
Plumber
Tool and Die Maker
TV Repairman
Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers
Assembly Line Worker
Carpenter's Helper
Construction Laborer
Grease Monkey in a
Service Station
Bus Driver
Filling Station
Attendant
Locomotive
Engineer
Barber

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
Longshoreman
Loom Operator
Machine Operator in a
Factory
Paper-Making Machine
Tender
Railroad Switchman
Saw Sharpener
Steam Boiler Fireman
Taxicab Driver
Trailer Truck Driver
Warehouse Hand
Machine Set-up Man
in a Factory
Power Crane
Operator
Railroad Conductor
Sawmill Machine
Operator
Sewing Machine
Operator
Steam Roller
Operator
Typesetter
Welder
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing
Farm Laborer
Farm Owner and
Operator
Gardener
Logger
Migrant Worker
Tenant Farmer
*p < .05
cant and systematic changes transpired. Changes measured by re-
spondents' card sorting point to the time-dependence of prestige
scales. Although shifts in public opinion did not render obsolete
those scales based on surveys from the 1960s, the scales have de-
cayed in usefulness over time. Given documented changes in the
evaluation of occupational titles, the Nakao-Treas scale for 1980 cate-
gories is certainly more appropriate than earlier scales for the analy-
sis of contemporary data, because it is based on the most recent
sounding of shifting public opinion.
4.2. Title Averaging
Recall that a single score for a heterogeneous detailed occupational
category is created by averaging ratings for several occupational ti-
tles within the category. This estimate for all occupational titles fall-
ing under the category is achieved at the expense of precision for the
rated titles. For example, we assigned a prestige score of 33 to the
21

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
6
n=2
4- n=20 n=36
3-
n=27
2 - n=25
n=34
n=3
0
n=13
-1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1989 Prestige Scores
FIGURE 1. Average Changes in the Prestige Scores from 1964 to 1989.
"Administrative Support Occupations, N.E.C." category by averag-
ing four title scores: 46 for "Court Clerk," 37 for "Office Helper for a
Hospital," 35 for "Fingerprinter," and 14 for "Envelope Stuffer."
The discrepancy between a title's own rating and its associated cate-
gory score is an inevitable error introduced by the very act of scale
construction that assigns scores to detailed occupational categories.
Even if it were possible to rate and average the tens of thousands of
known occupational titles, we could not determine each title's exact
contribution to the category's overall prestige, because we do not
know the distribution of titles within categories.13
Title-category discrepancies are a potential scource of differ-
ences between scales. The degree of error may well vary as a conse-
quence of differences in the titles rated as well as differences in the
occupational classification system to which titles are mapped. Al-
13We
might improve on the present procedure by disaggregating catego-
ries in light of the known industry and self-employment representation within
the category.
22

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
though averaging may affect thousands of titles, both rated and un-
rated, we can compare its impact over different measurement re-
gimes by focusing on the 160 occupational titles rated in both 1964
and 1989. As seen in Table 2, the correlation between Siegel's title
scores and his 1960-classification
category scores is 0.97 over 160
occupations. The correlation for the Nakao-Treas title and 1980-
classification category scores is 0.94. Title-to-category error is to be
found in both score sets.
Predictably, title averaging reduces the dispersion in the 160
scores (i.e., the 1960s standard deviation was 17.3 for titles and 16.3
for categories while the 1989 standard deviation was 15.8 for titles
and 14.9 for categories). Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show category-minus-
title score differences plotted against the title prestige scores from
the 1964 and the 1989 surveys. As anticipated,
title-to-category
aver-
aging tends to upgrade low-status occupations and downgrade high-
status occupations.
The specific effect of averaging depends on the survey period
and the classification system. Averaging also affects heterogeneous
categories more than homogeneous ones. For example, title-to-
category score discrepancies for managers stand out in Figures 2(a)
and 2(b); this category is known to be particularly
heterogeneous in
social standing. The 1980 Category 019, "Managers,
N.E.C.," con-
tains both "College and University President"
(which received a title
score of 81) and "Lunchroom
Operator" (which
was rated 27). Aver-
aging 1960s' data affected managerial occupations along the entire
prestige continuum, but the high- and low-status
managers
were par-
ticularly affected under the 1980 classification scheme.
Some title-to-category error is unavoidable except where a
category is represented by a single title. A subset of respondents in
the 1989 General Social Survey do fall under occupational catego-
ries where the Nakao-Treas
category score is based on a single title.
We can compare these respondents with the total sample to investi-
gate how much title-averaging attenuates prestige correlations for
the Nakao-Treas scores. Those in single-title categories may differ
from the full sample of respondents in other ways that affect inter-
generational transmission
of social standing, but a lower correlation
for single-title categories would be consistent with attenuation aris-
ing from title-category error. Since single-title categories are dispro-
portionately blue-collar, we randomly selected respondents from
single-title categories proportional to the composition of the age-
23

(a)
30
20- F
10 - M
T M 1,MM M
FT 0 IT PM
F P
0 kl
0 T
10-
M M M
20 - S
rn I I I I I
I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80
1964 Title Prestige Score
100
30
a)
o
0
0 20
0
,
(I)
a)
o 10
0
0)
o
a )
-20
C-)
-30
(b)
~~M~~~ ~ M
~M~M
T F T P
FS T I
mLm
0 S P
F 0 0 M p
T_ T S
f M 4
M
M T
I~ ~ ~ ~ I I
0 20 40 60 80
1989 Title Prestige Score
100
M: Managerial and Professional Specialty Occupations
T: Technical, Sales, and Administrative Support
S: Service Occupations
P: Precision Production, Craft, and Repair Occupations
O: Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers
F: Farming, Forestry, and Fishing
FIGURE 2. Category-Title Differences by Title Prestige Score, 1964 and 1989.
a)
0
o
0
C/)
a)
(n
3
c
>,
o
a)
0
0)
(o
-
-

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
standardized
labor force across
the six major
occupational groupings.
The intergenerational
prestige correlation
between 1154
GSS respon-
dents and their fathers is 0.19 as compared
with 0.24 for 590 respon-
dents from occupational categories that were not affected by title-
averaging. The differences, however, are not statistically
significant.
In sum, the averaging necessary to construct prestige scales
has the overall effect of reducing the dispersion in prestige scores.
The impact on specific titles may be considerable. It remains to be
seen whether significant attenuation in prestige correlations results
from this procedure for constructing
scores for all occupations. Pres-
tige studies relying on titles evaluated in different eras and keyed to
different classifications
will differ somewhat in their patterns
of title-
averaging error.
4.3. Classification
Differences
Although occupational classifications
underwent
only minor changes
between the 1960 and 1970
population
censuses, the changes between
1970 and 1980 were substantial. The 1980 classification routinely
broke up detailed occupational
categories and recombined
them with
those from elsewhere in the 1970
classification to form
new categories.
Such a big change in the system classifying
occupations
might well be
expected to affect prestige scales keyed to this system. Individual
titles
were certainly affected. "Travel
Agent," for example, registered 43
with Siegel's category score, but was downgraded
to 29 when scores
were reworked to the 1980 schema. "Service Station Manager," a
beneficiary
of reworking, rose from 37 to 55.
Prestige scores from Siegel and from Stevens-Hoisington can
be compared to assess whether changes in occupational
classification
seriously compromised prestige measures. Both Siegel's scores for
1960 categories and Stevens and Hoisington's scores reworked to
1980 categories are based on the data collected in the 1960s. There-
fore the differences between them embody actual differences in the
classification
systems-together with any error
introduced
by rework-
ing (i.e., imperfect allocation between the classification
systems).
Despite noteworthy differences between the 1980 classifica-
tion scheme and its predecessors, the impact on the prestige scales is
negligible. Considering 160 occupations, Table 2 reports a correla-
tion of 0.97 between the Siegel (1971) scale for 1960 categories and
25

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
the Stevens-Hoisington (1987) scale reworked to 1980 categories.
Their means are virtually the same. The standard deviation is some-
what lower for the reworked scale; since reworking involved averag-
ing scores, less dispersion is hardly surprising. However important
the classification changes for specific occupations, the overall scale is
not much affected by the change in the system for categorizing occu-
pational titles.
4.4. Differences Between New and Reworked Prestige Scales
Both the Nakao-Treas and the Stevens-Hoisington prestige scales are
keyed to the 1980 occupational classification system. The Nakao-
Treas scale is to be preferred because it is based on contemporary
ratings of occupational titles explicitly selected to cover the catego-
ries of the 1980 classification system.'4 Comparing the new and re-
worked scales shows that they do, indeed, differ from one another in
systematic ways.
As seen in Table 2, the new Nakao-Treas prestige scores and the
reworked Stevens-Hoisington scores correlate 0.94 over the 160 occu-
pational titles common to the 1989 and 1964 surveys.15 This correla-
tion over familiar and established occupational titles implies more
congruence between the scales than the researcher is apt to encounter
in practice.16 Focusing on workers rather than occupations reveals
greater discrepancy between new and reworked scores for the 1980
classification. The two scales correlate 0.90 when the 1980 occupa-
tional categories of respondents in the 1989 General Social Survey are
14The same argument holds for the superiority of the Nakao-Treas SEI
over the Stevens-Cho (1985) SEI for the 1980 occupational classification. Not
only do the Nakao-Treas SEI measures benefit from contemporary prestige
evaluations, but they also exploit income and education indicators from the 1980
Census of Population. The Stevens-Cho SEI relies on matching SEI scores based
on prestige evaluations of the 1960s and 1970 income and education data to the
1980 classification.
'5By way of comparison, the new SEI correlated 0.97 with the reworked
SEI from Stevens and Cho.
16The
divergence between the scales is particularly evident within some
of the major occupational groupings of blue-collar workers where low means
and standard deviations work against a correlation of extremes that can inflate
correlations. To take a worst-case example, the interscale correlation for de-
tailed occupational categories in the "Precision, Craft, and Repair" grouping
was only 0.53.
26

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
considered. This scale congruence is not just a question of the unit of
analysis. Results for the 503 detailed occupational categories that
make up the 1980 occupational classification system are more reveal-
ing than those for 160 occupations that happened to overlap the two
surveys. For over 503 categories, the correlation between the Nakao-
Treas and the Stevens-Hoisington scales is only 0.88.
This correlation is surprisingly low by the standards of prestige
studies. As we have demonstrated, even occupational titles whose
ratings are separated by a quarter century achieve a correlation of
0.97. Indeed, the 0.88 correlation for these two U.S. scales is on a par
with those reported by Treiman (1977, pp. 81-89) between scales
from the United States and those from Argentina, Ceylon, West
Germany, Guyana, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, the Philip-
pines, Uganda, and Zambia. In short, these are noteworthy discrep-
ancies for two contemporary U.S. prestige scales designed to mea-
sure the same robust construct.
Why do the two scales differ? Analyses reported above point
to shifts in public opinion, not classification considerations, as signifi-
cant factors differentiating other score sets examined.
Reworking did introduce some error despite the logical and
systematic procedures to create prestige scores for new categories
from old data. Consider the five detailed categories in the 1980 occu-
pational classification-"Inhalation Therapists," "Physical Thera-
pists," "Speech Therapists," "Occupational Therapists," and "Thera-
pists, N.E.C." Although their Nakao-Treas category prestige scores
ranged between 56 and 63, the Stevens-Hoisington score for all five
was a modest 39-a score drawn from the one category of therapists
listed in the 1970 occupational classification. The 1970 score itself
came from the 1960 category, "Therapists and Healers, N.E.C.,"
which had been scored by averaging the 1960s ratings for three occu-
pational titles-"Faith Healer" (22), "Masseur" (31), and "Occupa-
tional Therapist" (57). If the "Occupational Therapist" title (rated 57
in the 1960s and 56 in 1989) were any indication, therapists saw no
change in their social standing. Changes in the classification system,
however, split therapists from less prestigious lines of work and then
differentiated among them. New ratings collected for 1980 categories
accommodated these classification changes, but reworking old scores
into 1980 categories did not.
Although reworking old data to new categories had notewor-
27

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
thy effects on the social standing of some occupations, this does not
account for the observed disparities between the Stevens-Hoisington
and Nakao-Treas scores. Figure 3 charts average (mean) differences
between the two scales at each prestige decile (i.e., the first decile
contains the 16 occupations with the lowest prestige scores among
the 160 occupations in 1989). The differences between the Nakao-
Treas and the Stevens-Hoisington scales follow an M-shaped pat-
tern. The two scales assign similar scores to occupational categories
in the middle and tails of the distribution of prestige scores. They
diverge for upper-middle and lower-middle prestige occupations.
The differences between the Stevens-Hoisington scores for 1980
categories and the Siegel scores for 1960 categories do not conform
to the M-shaped plot. Instead, the differences show changes in the
occupational classification (and the prestige score manipulations
they necessitated) had marked effects only at the top of the prestige
distribution where reworked scores were lower than earlier scores
based on the same data.
If the differences in the Nakao-Treas and Stevens-Hoisington
scales do not parallel the effects of reworking 1960s scores to a new
classification, they are consistent with the changes in Americans'
views of the occupational order. Graphed differences between the
1989 Nakao-Treas title scores and the 1960s Siegel title scores cap-
ture these changes in public opinion. These secular changes in occu-
pational evaluations do show an M-shaped pattern much like the
differences separating the Nakao-Treas and the Stevens-Hoisington
scores for occupational categories.
Both the Nakao-Treas and the Stevens-Hoisington scales offer
prestige scores keyed to the 1980 occupational classification system.
The scales are not equivalent, however. The interscale correlation
over all occupational categories of the 1980 classification is consider-
ably lower than we might expect, given the very high correlations
routinely generated by efforts to measure prestige. Evidence sug-
gests that the scales differ, largely because the Nakao-Treas scores
capture the occupational evaluations of contemporary Americans
while the Stevens-Hoisington scores, based on ratings from the
1960s, do not. For contemporary data, the new Nakao-Treas scale
must be regarded as clearly more appropriate than the reworked
scale. It is to be preferred whenever data are keyed to the 1980
occupational classification system.
28

29
UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
5
4
3
v
L
0
u
4)
ol
0'
VI
O.
c
U)
0
u
c
5
I-
0,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Decile in 1989 Prestige Score
a Nakao-Treas (title) - Siegel (title)
+ Nakao-Treas (category) - Stevens-Hoisington (category)
Stevens-Hoisington (category) - NORC (category)
FIGURE 3. Differences in Prestige Scores for more than 160 Occupations.
5. DIFFERENT SCALES IN PRACTICE: A CAUTION FROM
SURVEY DATA
Typically, researchers apply prestige scales to the occupations of
individuals. How much does the choice of scale influence substan-
tive results in individual-level analyses? The 1989 General Social
Survey invites an assessment of this question, because it combines
an inventory of social variables with occupational data on individu-
als. In fact, the GSS carried out blind and independent double-
coding-categorizing occupational data on 1989 respondents, their
spouses, and their fathers according to both the 1970 and 1980
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
occupational classification systems. Three sets of prestige scores
can be assigned: Nakao-Treas scores for 1980 categories, Stevens-
Hoisington prestige scores reworked to 1980 categories, and NORC's
prestige scores for 1970 categories.
Recall that the correlation between the Nakao-Treas scale and
the Stevens-Hoisington scale is 0.90 when workers in the 1989 GSS
are the units of analysis. What is startling is that these two scales,
keyed to 1980 codes, generate only modest correlations with the
NORC scale for 1970 codes. Over GSS respondents in 1989, the
correlation between the NORC and Nakao-Treas scores is only 0.72.
The correlation between the NORC and Stevens-Hoisington scores
is 0.76.
Since both NORC and Stevens-Hoisington scores are based
on prestige data of the 1960s, we can rule out shifts in public opinion
as causes for the divergence between the scores for 1970 codes and
those for 1980. Based on our previous analyses of the effects of
changes in the occupational classification, we can also discount shifts
in occupational classification schemata as an important source of
disparities between the 1970 and later scales.
There is another possible explanation. Scales for the 1970 and
1980 classification systems might diverge for those very occupational
categories that contain a disproportionate share of the labor force. In
other words, GSS respondents, whose occupations are representa-
tive of the labor force, might overweight the scales' differences and/
or underweight their similarities. We can, indeed, document some
differences in the prestige distributions over respondents and over
detailed occupational categories. The GSS, for example, gives rela-
tively more weight to the middle of the 1989 prestige distribution.
However, the NORC and Stevens-Hoisington scales, being based on
the same survey data, correlate so highly (0.97) that there are few
scale differences that might be amplified by the GSS distribution.
Weighting is not a sufficient explanation for the low correlation be-
tween the 1970 and 1980 scores.
What remains to account for the low correlations between
1970 and 1980 prestige scales are coding errors-errors in assigning
occupational categories to work activities described by survey respon-
dents. Since the 1970 categories making up each 1980 category are
known (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1987), we can evaluate the 1970-
30

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
1980 matches in the 1989 GSS using the occupational double-coding
carried out by NORC. Fully 37 percent of respondents were coded
into a 1970 detailed occupational category that did not match their
independently assigned 1980 code.17
For example, three respondents
in the "Typist"
category (391) for 1970 were coded "Secretaries"
(313) instead of "Typists"
(315) according to the 1980 schema. Al-
though these lines of work are very similar, secretaries have higher
prestige than typists. Thus coding errors
in the GSS led to less similar-
ity between the 1970 and 1980 prestige scales than was observed over
the categories themselves.
NORC's own evaluation of occupational coding in the 1988
GSS is informative (Smith, Crovitz, and Walsh 1988). Cases with
1970-1980 matches inconsistent with the 1970-1980 transition matrix
of codes were flagged for independent recoding and reconciliation.
As a result, 17 percent of respondents' 1970 codes were changed as
were 22 percent of their 1980
codes; altogether, 31 percent of respon-
dents had one or both codes changed. Errors arose from interview
data that were too vague to permit reliable coding, from actual jobs
that did not mesh neatly with the classification
(e.g., those combin-
ing tasks associated with different occupational categories), from
coders' misuse of coding manuals or misunderstanding
of job titles,
and from clerical or data entry errors. Such problems
in occupational
coding are not unique to NORC. When respondents' reports from
the Current
Population Survey were compared
with their employers'
records, fully 42 percent did not agree at the level of three-digit
detailed occupational codes (Mellow and Sider 1983). At the Survey
Research Center at the University of Michigan, independently cod-
ing company records and survey respondents' reports resulted in 48
percent of cases in disagreement in detailed occupational codes
(Mathiowetz 1992).
More training, editing, and supervision can undoubtedly im-
prove coding reliability, but some mismatches are inherent in the
process of assigning complex codes to open-ended descriptions
of the
work respondents do. Even eliciting more detailed data may not
improve reliability
since the codes for 1988 GSS respondents
actually
'7True coding unreliability may exceed this figure. This estimate, for
example, does not include occupational titles that were miscoded into a legiti-
mate, but incorrect, 1980 category after their 1970 category was split.
31

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
generated higher mismatches than did the sketchier reports on their
spouses and fathers (Smith, Crovitz, and Walsh 1988). Mismatches
thus reflect on the classification
systems-their complexities and fail-
ure to capture unambiguously
the actual
job circumstances of Ameri-
can workers-as well as on the diligence of coders.
Double-coded GSS data show that existing differences be-
tween prestige scales are compounded by the difficulties of coding
survey data on respondents' occupations into detailed occupational
classifications.
Since a substantial
minority
of 1989 GSS respondents
are coded into 1970 categories that do not match their 1980 catego-
ries, the scale for the 1970 classification
is not highly correlated with
the scales for the 1980 classification. Again, the problem is not so
much that the two classifications differ. Rather, the difficulty
is that
each classification
is subject to coding error. The classifications were
designed to capture task, not prestige, differences between occupa-
tions. Miscoding-even to a nearby category of the occupation-
leads to significant disparities in prestige scores assigned under the
two classifications.
6. IMPLICATIONS
FROM A SUBSTANTIVE EXAMPLE
A dominant dimension of occupational hierarchy
underlies prestige
and socioeconomic scales-as indicated by the high correlations
be-
tween all prestige and SEI indicators. In fact, a principal
components
analysis
on our six sets of prestige scores and three related sets of SEI
scores underscores the importance of a hierarchical dimension of
social standing. If all sets of scores measure the same hierarchical
concept, we would expect them to have substantial
shared variance
and to yield a very high first eigenvalue in the principal
components
analysis. This is, indeed, the case. The first principal component
accounts for fully 92 percent of the variance. All nine score sets load
positively on this first component.18
'8Given the dominance of the hierarchical component, little variance
remains to be explained. Eigenvalues on the remaining components are less than
one, the Kaiser criterion for attributing components to random error. They
merit no attention on statistical grounds, but they are certainly consistent with
what we have come to expect about score sets. The second principal component,
for example, accounts for 4 percent of variance. The loadings on this component
32

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
In practice, this common hierarchy
overshadows the system-
atic difference between scales. This is demonstrated
by parallel sub-
stantive analyses with the various scales using 1989 GSS data. The
status attainment literature provides a well-established theoretical
context for a multivariate comparison of various prestige scales to-
gether with the SEI scales from Nakao-Treas
and Stevens-Cho. The
familiar structural
equation model assumes that the years of school-
ing completed by the respondent depend on his or her father's years
of schooling as well as on the father's
occupational standing
when the
respondent was 16 years of age. The respondent's current occupa-
tional standing
is assumed
to depend on both the respondent's
school-
ing and the two parental status variables. The results of separate
analyses for nonfarm men and women in the 1989 General Social
Survey appear in Table 4.
The patterning of standardized coefficients is very similar.
Indeed, the only disparity is the direct path from father's occupa-
tional prestige to woman's occupational prestige: like SEI, prestige
scores for the reworked 1980 occupational classification system
yield a statistically significant coefficient while the effects for the
new 1980 and 1970 prestige scales fall short of statistical
significance
at the 0.05 level. Consistent with previous findings (Hauser and
Featherman 1977; Treas and Tyree 1979), lower residual paths sug-
gest SEI measures account for more variance in intergenerational
attainment processes, especially for men, than do prestige scores.
Although scales differ in systematic ways, they are all intended to
measure the occupational order. They succeed in doing so with only
minor substantive differences in analyses: status attainment models
estimated with various prestige and socioeconomic scales lead to
very similar conclusions about the process of intergenerational
sta-
tus transmission.
Occupational scales are not impervious to other forces, al-
differentiate all prestige scores from all SEI scores. The third principal compo-
nent, accounting for little more than 1 percent of variance, suggests temporal
change differentiating score sets; those based on prestige data from the 1960s
load negatively while those based on the 1989 prestige survey load positively.
The fourth principal component, accounting for another 1 percent of variance,
seems to distinguish prestige scores for occupational titles from prestige scores
for occupational categories.
33

TABLE 4
Standardized Coefficients for Occupational Status Attainment Models by Sex Using Alternative Scales: U.S. Nonfarm Labor
Force, 1989***
Scale r2 P31 P32 P41 P42 P43 P3u P4 Meana SD"I
Males (n = 445)
Prestige
Nakao-Treas 0.50 0.45** 0.00 -0.05 0.06 0.54** 0.89 0.85 44.0 13.7
Stevens-Hoisington 0.50 0.45** 0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.54** 0.89 0.85 41.9 14.7
Siegel 0.47 0.42** 0.07 -0.02 0.05 0.50** 0.89 0.86 42.1 14.7
SEI
Nakao-Treas 0.56 0.45** 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.58** 0.89 0.80 48.9 16.9
Stevens-Cho 0.57 0.45** 0.01 -0.01 0.07 0.59** 0.89 0.80 37.6 19.5
Females (n = 556)
Prestige
Nakao-Treas 0.49 0.42** 0.11** -0.01 0.06 0.53** 0.87 0.84 42.6 13.4
Stevens-Hoisington 0.49 0.44** 0.08 -0.00 0.11** 0.52** 0.88 0.83 40.5 13.8
Siegel 0.44 0.47** 0.02 -0.04 0.05 0.57** 0.88 0.83 40.8 14.4
SEI
Nakao-Treas 0.57 0.40** 0.13** -0.03 0.10* 0.57** 0.87 0.80 44.9 17.6
Stevens-Cho 0.58 0.41** 0.11* -0.04 0.11** 0.56** 0.88 0.81 35.7 17.7
See Table 1 for descriptions
of various scales.
*p < .05
**p < .01
***1989
GSS
respondents
in labor force
except farming
aMean
and
SD of the Respondents' Occupational
Prestige
Scores

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
1
Father's
Education P 4
p3 3 4
Respondent's Respondent's
2 _ _
^ ^Education P43 Occupation
Father's A
Occupation P4
P3U V
U V
though their importance pales in comparison
to the overriding
vision
of occupational hierarchy shared by Americans. Errors are intro-
duced by the very process of constructing
a scale for all occupational
categories from information on a limited set of occupational titles.
Other errors enter when respondents' reports about their jobs are
coded to detailed occupational classifications.
Changes over time in
how Americans view occupations lead to obsolescence in occupa-
tional prestige scales.
What does this imply for the choice of a scale? Documented
changes in occupational evaluations mean that occupational data
keyed to the 1980 occupational classification should certainly em-
ploy the prestige or SEI scales from the 1989 inquiry. Where data
are keyed to the 1990 occupational classification
system, the Nakao-
Treas prestige scores for 1980 categories can be used with minor
modifications. There are still compelling reasons for continued use
of older prestige and SEI scales pegged to the 1960 and 1970 sys-
tems. First, classic data sets only report occupations coded to these
earlier classification
systems. Second, these systems have the histori-
cal advantage of employing occupational terminology actually in
use at the time they were formulated and the earlier occupational
data were gathered. Even for contemporary studies that collect
retrospective data on occupations, older classifications and scales
capture the cultural and material resources embodied in the occupa-
tions of earlier generations. Since the changes in classification
sys-
tems were not shown to matter much for the scales themselves,
there is no a priori reason that different classifications and their
scales could not be used together in longitudinal analyses (e.g.,
coding father's occupation with the Blau-Duncan SEI for the 1960
35

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
classification and respondent's occupation with the Nakao-Treas
SEI for the 1980 categories).19
There are systematic differences between scales. However,
the dominant dimension of the occupational hierarchy can be count-
ed on to generate high correlations even between flawed measures.
Selection of a scale for empirical application thus demands careful
consideration of the historical period under consideration.
7. CONCLUSION
This paper introduced new occupational prestige and socioeco-
nomic status scales constructed from the data collected in the 1989
NORC General Social Survey. With the advent of the new scales,
there are finally enough parallel measures to investigate the sources
of differences between various scales of occupational status. On an
occupation-by-occupation basis, it is again clear that all prestige and
socioeconomic status scores are linked by the extraordinarily robust
concept-the social standing of occupations.
Although the occupational order is remarkably stable, pres-
tige scores are not invariant. Occupations move up and down, and
the tendency in the last quarter century has been for lower-status
occupations to gain prestige points vis-a-vis higher status ones. Al-
though this has not greatly reordered the relative rankings of differ-
ent lines of work, the changes are sufficient to distinguish scales
reflecting public opinion in the 1960s from those reflecting Ameri-
cans' views in 1989. Temporal change gives a new scale, based on
new data, a wide edge over scales founded on earlier soundings of
public opinion for the analysis of recent cross-sectional data on
occupations.
If secular change has registered on prestige scales, major
changes in occupational classification systems have had little overall
effect. More substantial have been two relatively neglected sources
of error. First, prestige scale values are subject to error introduced
by the very process of averaging ratings for occupational titles to
create scores for all occupational categories. Second, prestige scores
for individuals are vulnerable to errors in translating respondents'
'9Results of status attainment analyses using this approach proved consis-
tent with those obtained when a single scale was used for both generations.
36

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES 37
reports of their work activities into the detailed occupational codes
to which prestige scores are keyed.
Occupational evaluations from the 1989 GSS yield prestige
and socioeconomic scales that are the latest generation in a venera-
ble tradition of sociological measurement. The distinctive
features of
these new measures serve to shed light on their conceptual, substan-
tive, and methodological bloodlines.

38
APPENDIX A:
TOP
9
8
7
6
M MIDDLE
I
D 5
L
4
3
2
BOTTOM
KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
OCCUPATIONAL PRESTIGE INSTRUMENT
9
Baker
8 2 t114Yk44eJ
Loan Processor
for a Bank
7 lp
Intructor
in
a
5 School for the
Handicapped
4
_ \ \
R
\ diation Control
3 Engineer
in a
Power Plant
2
Public Opinion
Pollter
1 ,
1
I
I
I
I
I
B
0
T
T
0
l
IV

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS
GSS-A -63- DECK 12
OCCUPATIONAL PRESTIGE SCALE
INTERVIEWER: SELECT THE SET OF OCCUPATIONAL CARDS THAT
MATCHES THE PSCORE NUMBER (01-12) ON THE LABEL.
NOW SET UP LADDER AND BEGIN.
148. Now let's talk about jobs. Here is a ladder with nine boxes on it, and a card
with the name of an occupation on it. (HAND FIRST CARD FROM
"OCCUPATIONS" ENVELOPE TO RESPONDENT.)
A. Please put the card in the box at the top of the ladder if you think that
occupation has the highest possible social standing.
B. Put it in the box at the bottom of the ladder if you think it has the
lowest possible social standing.
C. If it belongs somewhere in between, just put it in the box that matches
the social standing of the occupation.
(OBSERVE THE RESPONDENT'S PLACEMENT OF THE
CARD. IF HE IS UNCERTAIN AS TO HOW TO PERFORM
THE TASK, EXPLAIN IT AGAIN, REMAINING CLOSE TO
THE WORDING ABOVE. AFTER HE HAS SUCCESSFUL-
LY PLACED THE FIRST CARD, CONTINUE BELOW.)
D. Here are some more cards with names of occupations. (HAND RE-
SPONDENT CARDS FOR "OCCUPATION" QUESTIONS.) Just
put them on the ladder in the boxes that match the social standing they
have.
If you want to, you can change your mind about where an occupation
belongs, and move it's card to a different box.
WHEN RESPONDENT HAS COMPLETED PLACING THE ENTIRE
DECK OF OCCUPATION CARDS, ASK:
E. Would you like to change the placement of any occupation, or place a
card which you couldn't place earlier?
(ENCOURAGE HIM TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE ARRAY
OF OCCUPATIONS AGAIN TO MAKE CERTAIN HE HAS
PLACED EACH ONE WHERE HE WANTS IT-EVEN TO
THE POINT OF GOING THROUGH EACH PILE AGAIN IF
HE SO WISHES.)
HAVE YOUR ENVELOPES NUMBERED "1" THROUGH "9" AND
"DK" READY. PLACE CARDS WHICH RESPONDENT PUT IN
BOX 1 INTO ENVELOPE 1, THOSE HE PUT IN BOX 2 INTO ENVE-
LOPE 2, AND SO FORTH.
39

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS (continued)
PUT INTO "DK" ENVELOPE THOSE OCCUPATIONS WHICH RE-
SPONDENT COULD NOT PLACE ON THE LADDER.
RECORD BELOW THE BOXES INTO WHICH RESPONDENT
PLACES ANY CARDS. CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY.
Respondent put some cards in box number:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 27-35/
Altogether he used boxes. (DO NOT COUNT THE "DON'T
KNOW" PILE.) 36-37/
APPENDIX C: CHANGES BETWEEN 1980 AND 1990
OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
1980
CODE TITLE (Prestige Score)
SPLIT CATEGORIES
019 Managers and Administra-
tors, n.e.c. (51)
468 Child Care Workers, Except
Private Household (36)
MERGED CATEGORIES
349 Telegraphers (45)
353 Communications Equipment
Operators, n.e.c. (33)
368 Weighers, Measurers, and
Checkers (28)
369 Samplers (35)
436 Cooks, Except Short Order
(31)
437 Short-Order Cooks (28)
1990
CODE TITLE (Prestige Score)
017 Managers, Food Serving and
Lodging Establishments (41)
021 Managers, Service Organiza-
tions, n.e.c. (42)
022 Managers and Administra-
tors, n.e.c. (57)
466 Family Child Care Providers
(36)
467 Early Childhood Teacher's
Assistants (36)
468 Childcare Workers, n.e.c.
(36)
353 Communications Equipment
Operators, n.e.c. (39)
368 Weighers, Measurers, Check-
ers and Samplers (31)
436 Cooks (30)
40

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
673 Apparel and Fabric Pat- 674 Miscellaneous Precision Ap-
ternmakers (37) parel and Fabric Workers
(35)
674 Miscellaneous Precision Ap-
parel and Fabric Workers
(34)
794 Hand Grinding and Polishing 795 Miscellaneous Hand Work-
Occupations (35) ing Occupations (33)
795 Miscellaneous Hand Work-
ing Occupations (32)
804 Truck Drivers, Heavy (30) 804 Truck Drivers (30)
805 Truck Drivers, Light (30)
RENAMED CATEGORIES-SAME CODES
098 Inhalation Therapists (63) 098 Respiratory Therapists (63)
558 Supervisors, n.e.c. (54) 558 Supervisors, Constructing,
n.e.c. (54)
734 Printing Machine Operators 734 Printing Press Operators (39)
(39)
RENUMBERED CATEGORIES
017 Postmasters and Mail Super- 016 Postmasters and Mail Super-
intendents (53) intendents (53)
016 Managers, Properties and 018 Managers, Properties and
Real Estate (39) Real Estate (39)
018 Funeral Directors (49) 019 Funeral Directors (49)
463 Guides (29) 461 Guides (29)
464 Ushers (20) 462 Ushers (20)
465 Public Transportation Atten- 463 Public Transportation Atten-
dants (42) dants (42)
466 Baggage Porters and 464 Baggage Porters and
Bellhops (27) Bellhops (27)
467 Welfare Service Aides (47) 465 Welfare Service Aides (47)
633 Supervisors, Production Oc- 628 Supervisors, Production Oc-
cupations (47) cupations (47)
863 Supervisors, Handlers, Equip- 864 Supervisors, Handlers, Equip-
ment Cleaners and Laborers, ment Cleaners, and Labor-
n.e.c. (27) ers, n.e.c. (27)
864 Helpers, Mechanics and Re- 865 Helpers, Mechanics and Re-
pairers (33) pairers (33)
865 Helpers, Construction Trade 866 Helpers, Construction Trade
(30) (30)
866 Helpers, Surveyor (38) 867 Helpers, Surveyor (38)
867 Helpers, Extractive Occupa- 868 Helpers, Extractive Occupa-
tions (38) tions (38)
873 Production Helpers (31) 874 Production Helpers (31)
Source: Notes from U.S. Department of Commerce
Nakao and Treas (1990)
41

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
1989
1980 1989 Total-
Census Prestige based 1980 Census Occupational Category and Occupational Titles
Code Score SEI Used to Compute the Prestige Score
MANAGERIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY OCCUPATIONS
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial Occupations
003 61 74 Legislators
61 Member of a City Council
004 70 59 Chief Executives and General Administrators, Public
Administration
65 City Manager
76 Mayor of a Large City
005 51 70 Administrators and Officials, Public Administration
76 Department Head in a State Government
41 Park Superintendent
55 Social Security Administrator
33 Tax Collector
006 54 55 Administrators, Protective Service
54 Traffic Safety Administrator
007 59 74 Financial Managers
59 Branch Manager of a Bank
008 54 69 Personnel and Labor Relations Managers
54 Personnel Director
009 63 75 Purchasing Managers
63 Purchasing Manager for a Business
013 59 73 Managers, Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations
63 Advertising Executive
56 Marketing Representative for a Manufacturing Firm
014 64 85 Administrators, Education and Related Fields
59 College Admissions Officer
69 School Principal
015 69 74 Managers, Medicine and Health
68 Hospital Administrator
016 39 54 Managers, Properties and Real Estate
37 Apartment Building Manager
40 Landlord/Landlady
33 Mobile Home Park Manager
017 53 55 Postmasters and Mail Superintendents
53 Postmaster
42

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
018 49 74 Funeral Directors
49 Funeral Director
019 51 64 Managers and Administrators, n.e.c.
50 A Manager
63 Banker
62 Business Entrepreneur
59 Businessman
81 College or University President
62 General Manager of a Manufacturing Plant
43 General Manager of a Moving and Storage Company
71 Hospital Administrator
46 Labor Union Organizer
42 Local Official of a Labor Union
27 Lunchroom Operator
41 Manager for a Fastfood Franchise
48 Manager for a Motel Chain
46 Manager of a Cement Factory
43 Manager of a Commercial Bakery
57 Manager of a Local TV Station
36 Manager of a Movie Theater
42 Manager of a Pulp Mill
63 Manager of an Automobile Plant
29 Manager of an Escort Service
51 Manager of United Way Charity
69 Member of the Board of Directors of a Large
Corporation
57 Motel Owner
38 Organizer for a Religious Crusade
56 Owner of a Bottling Plant
44 Owner of a Bowling Alley
37 Owner of a Check Cashing Service
60 Owner of a Computer Software Company
48 Owner of a Day Care Center
61 Owner of a Foundry
47 Owner of a Local Bus Company
64 Owner of a Local Radio Station
68 Owner of a Manufacturing Plant
43 Owner of a Modeling Agent
53 Owner of an Apparel Factory
51 Owner-Operator of a Printing Shop
35 Party Caterer
39 Playground Director
48 Regional Manager for a Bus Company
55 Restaurant Owner
24 Saloonkeeper
66 School Superintendent
50 Toy Manufacturer
023 65 76 Accountants and Auditors
65 Accountant
024 48 60 Underwriters
43

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
025 48 67 Other Financial Officers
46 Credit Manager
45 Income-Tax Preparer
54 Personal Financial Planner
49 Venture Capitalist
026 61 83 Management Analysts
61 Management Consultant
027 43 63 Personnel, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists
46 Job Counselor
42 Personnel Recruiter
43 Union Organizer
028 42 49 Purchasing Agents and Buyers, Farm Products
42 Farm Produce Buyer
029 50 58 Buyers, Wholesale and Retail Trade Except Farm
Products
50 Merchandise Buyer for a Department Store
033 41 62 Purchasing Agents and Buyers
41 Timber Buyer for a Pulp Mill
034 51 61 Business and Promotion Agents
51 Theatrical Agent
035 47 55 Construction Inspectors
47 Elevator Safety Inspector
036 50 63 Inspectors and Compliance Officers, Except Construction
49 Customs Inspector
45 Government Meat Grader
56 Public Health Analyst
037 49 68 Management Related Occupations, n.e.c.
56 Administrative Assistant
41 Paid Campaign Staff Member
Professional Specialty Occupations
043 73 84 Architects
73 Architect
044 72 93 Aerospace Engineers
72 Aeronautical Engineer
045 61 88 Metallurgical and Materials Engineers
61 Metallurgical Engineer
046 60 84 Mining Engineers
60 Mining Engineer
047 66 89 Petroleum Engineers
66 Oil Exploration Engineer
048 73 93 Chemical Engineers
73 Chemical Engineer
44

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
049 63 91 Nuclear Engineers
63 Radiation Control Engineer in a Power Plant
053 69 87 Civil Engineers
69 Civil Engineer
054 60 86 Agricultural Engineers
055 64 87 Electrical and Electronic Engineers
64 Electrical Engineer
056 62 78 Industrial Engineers
62 Quality Control Engineer
057 64 86 Mechanical Engineers
64 Mechanical Engineer
058 59 71 Marine and Naval Architects
59 Marine Engineer
059 71 88 Engineers, n.e.c.
71 Engineer
063 51 59 Surveyors and Mapping Scientists
51 Surveyor
064 74 84 Computer Systems Analysts and Scientists
74 Computer Scientist
065 53 80 Operations and Systems Researchers and Analysts
53 Office Systems Analyst
066 44 90 Actuaries
44 Actuary for an Insurance Company
067 56 75 Statisticians
56 Statistician
068 63 92 Mathematical Scientists, n.e.c.
63 Mathematician
069 73 91 Physicists and Astronomers
73 Physicist
073 73 87 Chemists, Except Biochemists
73 Chemist
074 63 79 Atmospheric and Space Scientists
63 Meteorologist
075 70 90 Geologists and Geodesists
70 Geologist
076 73 84 Physical Scientists, n.e.c.
73 Environmental Scientist
077 58 73 Agricultural and Food Scientists
58 Dairy Scientist
078 73 84 Biological and Life Scientists
73 Biologist
079 55 72 Forestry and Conservation Scientists
55 Professionally Trained Forester
083 64 85 Medical Scientists
64 Immunologist
084 86 97 Physicians
86 Physician
085 72 96 Dentists
72 Dentist
45

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
086 62 90 Veterinarians
62 Veterinarian
087 67 93 Optometrists
67 Optometrist
088 65 91 Podiatrists
65 Podiatrist
089 50 87 Health Diagnosing Practitioners, n.e.c.
44 Acupuncturist
57 Chiropractor
095 66 73 Registered Nurses
66 Registered Nurse
096 68 89 Pharmacists
68 Pharmacist
097 56 55 Dietitians
56 Dietitian in a Hospital
098 63 61 Inhalation Therapists
63 Oxygen Therapist
099 56 74 Occupational Therapists
56 Occupational Therapist
103 61 74 Physical Therapists
61 Physical Therapist
104 61 76 Speech Therapists
61 Speech Therapist
105 62 64 Therapists, n.e.c.
62 Professionally Trained Health Therapist
106 61 52 Physicians' Assistants
64 Paramedic
58 Physician's Assistant
113 74 86 Earth, Environmental, and Marine Science Teachers
74 College Professor
114 74 87 Biological Science Teachers
74 College Professor
115 74 87 Chemistry Teachers
74 College Professor
116 74 89 Physics Teachers
74 College Professor
117 74 86 Natural Science Teachers, n.e.c.
74 College Professor
118 74 88 Psychology Teachers
74 College Professor
119 74 87 Economics Teachers
74 College Professor
46

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES 47
123 74 89 History Teachers
74 College Professor
124 74 80 Political Science Teachers
74 College Professor
125 74 89 Sociology Teachers
74 College Professor
126 74 85 Social Science Teachers, n.e.c.
74 College Professor
127 74 85 Engineering Teachers
74 College Professor
128 74 84 Mathematical Science Teachers
74 College Professor
129 74 75 Computer Science Teachers
74 College Professor
133 74 93 Medical Science Teachers
74 College Professor
134 74 81 Health Specialties Teachers
74 College Professor
135 74 83 Business, Commerce, and Marketing Teachers
74 College Professor
136 74 87 Agriculture and Forestry Teachers
74 College Professor
137 74 81 Art, Drama, and Music Teachers
74 College Professor
138 74 79 Physical Education Teachers
74 College Professor
139 74 86 Education Teachers
74 College Professor
143 74 82 English Teachers
74 College Professor
144 74 80 Foreign Language Teachers
74 College Professor
145 74 94 Law Teachers
74 College Professor
146 74 89 Social Work Teachers
74 College Professor
147 74 87 Theology Teachers
74 College Professor
148 74 71 Trade and Industrial Teachers
74 College Professor
149 74 79 Home Economics Teachers
74 College Professor
153 74 83 Teachers, Postsecondary, n.e.c.
74 College Professor
154 74 87 Postsecondary Teachers, Subject Not Specified
74 College Professor
155 55 57 Teachers, Prekindergarten and Kindergarten
55 Nursery School Teacher
156 64 79 Teachers, Elementary School
64 Public Grade School Teacher

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
157 66 80 Teachers, Secondary School
66 High School Teacher
158 65 64 Teachers, Special Education
65 Instructor in a School for the Handicapped
159 46 62 Teachers, n.e.c.
34 Aerobics Instructor
58 County Agricultural Agent
39 Driving School Teacher
51 Natural Childbirth and Infant Care Instructor
163 57 81 Counselors, Educational and Vocational
56 Drug or Alcohol Rehabilitation Counselor
58 School Counselor
164 54 72 Librarians
54 Professionally Trained Librarian
165 52 71 Archivists and Curators
52 Museum Curator
166 63 85 Economists
63 Economist
167 69 83 Psychologists
69 Psychologist
168 61 80 Sociologists
61 Sociologist
169 65 78 Social Scientists, n.e.c.
65 Social Scientist
173 52 86 Urban Planners
52 Urban Planner
174 52 69 Social Workers
52 Social Worker
175 38 52 Recreation Workers
38 Camp Counselor
176 69 74 Clergy
67 Clergyman
69 Minister
71 Priest
177 44 65 Religious Workers, n.e.c.
41 Evangelist
38 Organizer for a Religious Crusade
52 Social Worker
178 75 92 Lawyers
75 Lawyer
179 71 87 Judges
71 Justice of a Municipal Court
48

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
183 63 76 Authors
63 Author
184 54 79 Technical Writers
54 Writer of Technical Manuals
185 47 61 Designers
55 Fashion Designer
48 Interior Decorator
37 Window Display Artist
186 47 57 Musicians and Composers
48 Jazz Musician
32 Member of a Rock Band
59 Musician in a Symphony Orchestra
187 58 72 Actors and Directors
58 Actor/Actress
57 TV Director
188 52 63 Painters, Sculptors, Craft-Artists, and Artist Printmakers
52 Commercial Artist
189 45 59 Photographers
45 Photographer
193 53 44 Dancers
53 Ballet Dancer
194 36 52 Artists, Performers, and Related Workers, n.e.c.
58 Foreign Language Translator
13 Fortune Teller
195 60 75 Editors and Reporters
60 Journalist
197 48 74 Public Relations Specialists
46 Lobbyist
49 Public Relations Man/Woman
198 55 60 Announcers
45 Disc Jockey
62 TV Anchorperson
57 TV Announcer
199 65 59 Athletes
65 Professional Athlete
TECHNICAL, SALES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
OCCUPATIONS
Technicians and Related Support Occupations
203 68 65 Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians
68 Medical Technician
204 52 74 Dental Hygientists
52 Dental Hygientist
205 52 58 Health Record Technologists and Technicians
52 Medical-Record Librarian in a
Hospital
206 58 60 Radiologic Technicians
58 X-ray Technician
49

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
207 60 44 Licensed Practical Nurses
60 Licensed Practical Nurse
208 57 51 Health Technologists and Technicians, n.e.c.
53 Orthopedic Brace Maker
61 Water-Pollution Specialist
213 60 61 Electrical and Electronic Technicians
62 Computer Technician
58 Electrical Technician
214 40 56 Industrial Engineering Technicians
30 Paper Tester in a Pulp Mill
49 Time-Motion Analyst
215 54 64 Mechanical Engineering Technicians
54 Development Technician in a
Factory
216 48 62 Engineering Technicians, n.e.c.
46 Engineer's Aide
45 Sound Mixer in a Television
Station
54 Technician
217 51 62 Drafting Occupations
51 Draftsman
218 36 50 Surveying and Mapping Technicians
36 Aide on a Land Survey Crew
223 32 53 Biological Technicians
32 Milk Tester
224 38 62 Chemical Technicians
38 Paint Tester in a Paint Manufacturing Plant
225 44 59 Science Technicians, n.e.c.
44 Crude Oil Tester in a Petroleum Refinery
226 61 80 Airplane Pilots and Navigators
66 Airline Flight Engineer
73 Airline Pilot
45 Crop-Duster Pilot
227 65 64 Air Traffic Controllers
65 Air Traffic Controller
228 43 46 Broadcast Equipment Operators
43 Radio Operator
229 61 76 Computer Programmers
61 Computer Programmer
233 48 70 Tool Programmers, Numerical
Control
48 Tool Programmer in a Manufacturing Plant
234 57 57 Legal Assistants
57 Para-Legal
50

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC SCORES
235 41 66 Technicians, n.e.c.
43 Fingerprint Classifier
39 Public Opinion Pollster
Sales Occupations
243 44 51 Supervisors and Proprietors, Sales
Occupations
45 Importer
38 Manager of a Mail Order House
49 Manager of a Real Estate Office
48 Manager of a Supermarket
45 Owner of a Filling Station and Garage
55 Owner of a Food Store
42 Owner of a Mail Order House
61 Owner of an Art Gallery
38 Service Station Manager
21 Swap Meet Vendor
45 Wholesale Distributor
253 45 66 Insurance Sales Occupations
46 Insurance Agent
39 Insurance Application Evaluator
49 Insurance Underwriter
254 49 64 Real Estate Sales Occupations
48 Real Estate Agent
50 Real Estate Appraiser
255 53 81 Securities and Financial Services Sales Occupations
53 Stock and Bond Salesman
256 39 66 Advertising and Related Sales Occupations
39 Advertising Salesman
257 32 62 Sales Occupations, Other Business Services
32 Crafting and Moving Estimator
32 Home Improvement Salesperson
258 53 87 Sales Engineers
53 Sales Engineer
259 49 64 Sales Representatives, Mining, Manufacturing, and
Wholesale
51 Manufacturer's Representative
54 Pharmaceutical Representative
40 Traveling Salesman for a Wholesale Concern
263 34 49 Sales Workers, Motor Vehicles and Boats
43 Automobile Dealer
25 Used Car Salesman
264 30 38 Sales Workers, Apparel
30 Dry-Goods Clerk in a Variety Store
30 Salesperson in a Designer Boutique
265 28 40 Sales Workers, Shoes
28 Salesperson in a Shoe Store
266 31 47 Sales Workers, Furniture and Home Furnishings
31 Salesperson in a Furniture Store
267 31 50 Sales Workers, Radio, TV, Hi-Fi, and Appliances
31 Salesperson in an Appliance Store
51

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
268 32 43 Sales Workers, Hardware and Building Supplies
32 Salesperson in a Hardware Store
269 30 39 Sales Workers, Parts
30 Counter Clerk in an Auto Parts Store
274 32 39 Sales Workers, Other Commodities
34 Bail Bond Provider
28 Delicatessen Counter Clerk in a Grocery Story
23 Photo-Booth Operator
36 Sales Clerk in a Store
31 Salesperson in a Store
41 Travel Agent
275 34 34 Sales Counter Clerks
34 Car Rental Agent
276 29 33 Cashiers
26 Bridge Toll Collector
33 Cashier in a Supermarket
277 22 37 Street and Door-To-Door Sales Workers
25 Door-to-Door Salesman/Saleswoman
21 Pushcart Vendor
22 Telephone Solicitor
278 19 37 News Vendors
19 Newspaper Peddler
283 32 37 Demonstrators, Promoters and Models, Sales
39 Advertising Salesman
25 Home Products Demonstrator
284 39 45 Auctioneers
39 Auctioneer
285 36 49 Sales Support Occupations, n.e.c.
37 Bridal Consultant
34 Comparison Shopper for a Grocery Store
Administrative Support Occupations, Including Clerical
303 51 52 Supervisors, General Office
56 Hospital-Admissions Officer
52 Officer Supervisor
44 Typing Pool Supervisor
304 54 66 Supervisors, Computer Equipment Operators
54 Computer Room Supervisor for a Business Firm
305 52 65 Supervisors, Financial Records Processing
52 Payroll Supervisor
306 49 58 Chief Communications Operators
49 Supervisor of a Branch Telephone Exchange
307 42 51 Supervisors, Distribution, Scheduling, and Adjusting
Clerks
48 Cargo Supervisor for an Airline
52

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC SCORES
39 Mailroom Supervisor for a Private Company
38 Stockroom Manager
308 50 47 Computer Operators
50 Computing Machine Operator
309 40 40 Peripheral Equipment Operators
313 46 38 Secretaries
46 Secretary
314 47 45 Stenographers
47 Stenographer
315 40 35 Typists
35 Typist
45 Word Processor
316 49 44 Interviewers
49 Market Research Investigator
317 32 40 Hotel Clerks
32 Desk Clerk in a Hotel
318 35 57 Transportation Ticket and Reservation Agents
39 Airline Ticket Agent
32 Railroad Ticket Agent
319 39 37 Receptionists
39 Receptionist
323 35 40 Information Clerks, n.e.c.
35 Insurance Policy Information Clerk
34 Public-Address Announcer at a Train Station
325 31 45 Classified-Ad Clerks
31 Classified Ad Taker for a Newspaper
326 35 45 Correspondence Clerks
35 Correspondence Clerk
327 31 38 Order Clerks
31 Mail-Order Clerk
328 36 39 Personnel Clerks, Except Payroll and Timekeeping
36 Employment Clerk
329 29 52 Library Clerks
29 Library Book Shelver
335 36 37 File Clerks
36 File Clerk
336 31 39 Records Clerks
31 Credit-Card Record Clerk for a Department Store
337 47 38 Bookkeepers, Accounting and Auditing Clerks
47 Bookkeeper
338 42 36 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks
42 Payroll Clerk
339 31 33 Billing Clerks
31 Billing Clerk
343 28 44 Cost and Rate Clerks
28 Price Marker in a Retail Store
344 35 34 Billing, Posting, and Calculating Machine Operators
35 Billing-Machine Operator
345 35 38 Duplicating Machine Operators
35 Photocopying-Machine Operator
53

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
346 36 30 Mail Preparing and Paper Handling Machine Operators
36 Addressing-Machine Operator
347 39 34 Office Machine Operators, n.e.c.
39 Currency Sorter in a Bank
348 40 31 Telephone Operators
40 Telephone Operator
349 45 46 Telegraphers
45 Telegraph Operator
353 33 33 Communications Equipment Operators, n.e.c.
33 Telephone-Answering-Service Operator
354 42 54 Postal Clerks, Excluding Mail Clerks
42 Post Office Clerk
355 47 54 Mail Carriers, Postal Service
47 Mailman
356 32 36 Mail Clerks, Excluding Postal Service
34 Clerk for a Private Mail Carrier
30 Mailroom Clerk for a Private Company
357 22 39 Messengers
22 Bicycle Messenger
22 Leaflet Distributor
23 Office Boy
359 35 44 Dispatchers
35 Truck Dispatcher
363 42 47 Production Coordinators
49 Load Planner for an Airline Company
35 Material Lister for a Construction Company
364 33 34 Traffic, Shipping and Receiving Clerks
33 Shipping Clerk
365 27 37 Stock and Inventory Clerks
28 Parts Clerk
27 Stockroom Attendant
366 34 37 Meter Readers
34 Meter Reader for a Gas or Electric Company
368 28 34 Weighers, Measurers, and Checkers
28 Freight Checker
369 35 38 Samplers
35 Sample Collector in a Pulp Mill
373 43 42 Expediters
43 Order Expediter for a Wholesale Business
374 24 34 Material Recording, Scheduling and Distributing Clerks,
n.e.c.
24 Lost-and-Found Clerk in a Department Store
375 47 55 Insurance Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators
47 Insurance Claims Investigator
54

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
376 40 53 Investigators and Adjusters, Except Insurance
36 Claims Clerk
36 Customer-Complaint Clerk
48 Loan Processor for a Bank
377 46 53 Eligibility Clerks, Social Welfare
46 Eligibility Interviewer for a Social Welfare Agency
378 24 42 Bill and Account Collectors
24 Bill Collector
379 34 38 General Office Clerks
34 Clerk in an Office
383 43 35 Bank Tellers
43 Bank Teller
384 43 46 Proofreaders
43 Newspaper Proofreader
385 41 31 Data-Entry Keyers
41 Data Entry Clerk
386 38 44 Statistical Clerks
38 Record Keeper
387 43 37 Teachers' Aides
43 Teacher's Aide in an Elementary School
389 33 51 Administrative Support Occupations, n.e.c.
46 Court Clerk
14 Envelope Stuffer
35 Fingerprinter
37 Office Helper for a Hospital
SERVICE OCCUPATIONS
Private Household Occupations
403 23 29 Launderers and Ironers
23 Laundress
404 30 25 Cooks, Private Household
30 Cook in a Private Home
405 34 23 Housekeepers and Butlers
34 Housekeeper in a Private Home
406 29 31 Child Care Workers, Private Household
29 Professional Babysitter
407 23 22 Private Household Cleaners and Servants
23 Cleaning Woman in Private Homes
Protective Service Occupations
413 60 63 Supervisors, Firefighting and Fire Prevention Occupations
60 Fire Department Lieutenant
414 62 70 Supervisors, Police and Detectives
62 Police Lieutenant
415 38 55 Supervisors, Guards
38 Museum Security Chief
416 60 53 Fire Inspection and Fire Prevention Occupations
60 Fire Inspector
417 53 52 Firefighting Occupations
53 Fireman
55

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
418 60 63 Police and Detectives, Public Service
51 Border Patrol Agent
59 Narcotics Investigator
61 Police Officer
60 Policeman/Policewoman
60 Secret Service Agent
423 48 53 Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and Other Law Enforcement Officers
62 County Sheriff
35 Court Bailiff
424 40 46 Correctional Institution Officers
39 Houseparent in a State Reformatory
40 Prison Guard
425 32 23 Crossing Guards
32 School-Crossing Guard
426 42 39 Guards and Police, Excluding Public Service
44 Private Eye
40 Security Guard in a Bank
427 37 49 Protective Service Occupations
37 Animal-Control Officer
Service Occupations, Except Protective and Household
433 35 38 Supervisors, Food Preparation and Service Occupations
35 Cafeteria Supervisor
434 25 34 Bartenders
25 Bartender
435 28 32 Waiters and Waitresses
27 Waiter in a Restaurant
29 Waitress in a Restaurant
436 31 28 Cooks, Except Short Order
27 Cook in a Pizza Shop
34 Cook in a Restaurant
437 28 33 Short-Order Cooks
28 Short-Order Cook
438 23 35 Food Counter, Fountain and Related Occupations
26 Counter Clerk in a Fast Food Place
20 Soda Jerk
439 24 29 Kitchen Workers, Food Preparation
24 Salad Maker in a Hotel Kitchen
443 21 35 Waiters'/Waitresses'
Assistants
21 Table Clearer in a Restaurant
444 17 29 Miscellaneous Food Preparation Occupations
17 Dishwasher
445 45 40 Dental Assistants
45 Dentist's Attendant
56

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC SCORES
446 51 37 Health Aids, Except Nursing
49 Ambulance Driver
53 Physical Therapy Assistant
447 42 29 Nursing Aides, Orderlies and Attendants
41 Hospital Attendant
42 Midwife
448 36 35 Supervisors, Cleaning and Building Service Workers
36 Supervisor of a Janitorial Service
449 20 21 Maids and Housemen
20 Hotel Chambermaid
453 22 28 Janitors and Cleaners
22 Janitor
454 28 27 Elevator Operators
28 Elevator Operator in a Building
455 32 33 Pest Control Occupations
32 Termite Exterminator
456 37 44 Supervisors, Personal Service Occupations
46 Child Care Supervisor
27 Head Usher
457 36 30 Barbers
36 Barber
458 36 26 Hairdressers and Cosmetologists
33 Beauty Operator
43 Electrolysis Operator
32 Hair Stylist
459 25 40 Attendants, Amusement and Recreation Facilities
25 Attendant in an Ice-Skating Rink
463 29 49 Guides
29 Sightseeing Guide
464 20 46 Ushers
20 Theater Usher
465 42 63 Public Transportation Attendants
47 Airline Steward/Stewardess
38 Passenger Service Representative
466 27 37 Baggage Porters and Bellhops
25 Bell Boy in a Hotel
30 Skycap
467 47 31 Welfare Service Aides
47 Home-Care Aide for the Elderly
468 36 33 Child Care Workers, Except Private Household
36 Day Care Aide
469 25 34 Personal Service Occupations, n.e.c.
32 Boardinghouse Keeper
27 Masseur/Masseuse
17 Shoeshiner
FARMING, FORESTRY, AND FISHING OCCUPATIONS
Farm Operators and Managers
473 40 37 Farmers, Except Horticultural
48 Cattle Rancher
57

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
27 Cotton Planter
53 Farm Owner and Operator
47 Grain Farmer
37 Hog Raiser
39 Orange Grower
30 Poultry Raiser
32 Tenant Farmer
51 Vineyard Owner
474 37 45 Horticultural Specialty Farmers
37 Greenhouse Florist
475 48 45 Managers, Farms, Except Horticultural
48 Farm Manager
476 48 39 Managers, Horticultural Specialty Farms
Farm Occupations, Except Managerial
477 44 40 Supervisors, Farm Workers
44 Farm Foreman
479 23 27 Farm Workers
27 Cattle Brander
22 Cotton Picker
30 Farm Laborer
19 Migrant Worker
18 Orange Grove Picker
483 31 37 Marine Life Cultivation Workers
31 Laborer in a Commercial Fish Hatchery
484 26 31 Nursery Workers
26 Greenhouse Helper
Related Agricultural Occupations
485 36 43 Supervisors, Related Agricultural Occupations
36 Ground Crew Supervisor in a Public Park
486 29 31 Groundskeepers and Gardeners, Except Farm
29 Gardener
487 21 38 Animal Caretakers, Except Farm
21 Horse Stable Attendant
488 31 20 Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products
31 Sorting Machine Operator on a Farm
489 49 42 Inspectors, Agricultural Products
49 Agricultural Fruit Inspector for Insect Control
Forestry and Lodging Occupations
494 44 43 Supervisors, Forestry and Logging Workers
44 Supervisor in a Logging Operation
495 39 38 Forestry Workers, Except Logging
39 Forester's Aide
58

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
496 31 27 Timber Cutting and Logging Occupations
31 Logger
Fishers, Hunters, and Trappers
497 43 42 Captains and Other Officers, Fishing Vessels
43 Deck Officer on a Commercial Fishing Boat
498 34 33 Fishers
34 Commercial Fisher
499 23 45 Hunters and Trappers
23 Animal Trapper
PRECISION PRODUCTION, CRAFT, AND REPAIR OCCUPATIONS
Mechanics and Repairers
503 50 49 Supervisors, Mechanics and Repairers
54 Airline Ground Crew Chief
46 Supervisor in a Auto Repair Shop
505 40 32 Automobile Mechanics, Except Apprentices
40 Automobile Mechanic
506 34 38 Automobile Mechanic Apprentices
34 Apprentice Auto Mechanic
507 44 35 Bus, Truck, and Stationary Engine Mechanics
44 Diesel Motor Mechanic
508 53 53 Aircraft Engine Mechanics
53 Airplane Mechanic
509 28 32 Small Engine Repairers
28 Lawn Mower Engine Repairer
514 31 30 Automobile Body and Related Repairers
31 Automobile Painter
515 53 46 Aircraft Mechanics, Excluding Engine
516 45 38 Heavy Equipment Mechanics
45 Locomotive Repairman
517 36 34 Farm Equipment Mechanics
36 Irrigation Pump Installer
518 30 36 Industrial Machinery Repairers
30 Loom Fixer in a Textile Mill
519 26 37 Machinery Maintenance Occupations
26 Machine Oiler
523 39 45 Electronic Repairers, Communications and Industrial
Equipment
39 TV Repairman
525 51 62 Data Processing Equipment Repairers
51 Computer Repairer
526 38 39 Household Appliance and Power Tool Repairers
38 Home Refrigerator Repairer
527 41 45 Telephone Line Installers and Repairers
41 Poll Climber for a Telephone Company
529 36 49 Telephone Installers and Repairers
36 Telephone Installer
533 39 41 Miscellaneous Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Repairers
39 Electric Motor Repairer
59

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
534 42 39 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics
42 Air Conditioning Mechanic
535 35 46 Camera, Watch, and Musical Instrument Repairers
35 Piano Tuner
536 39 39 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers
39 Locksmith
538 37 47 Office Machine Repairers
37 Cash Register Repairman
539 36 39 Mechanical Controls and Valve Repairers
36 Electric-Meter Installer
543 39 45 Elevator Installers and Repairers
39 Elevator Repairer
544 43 42 Millwrights
43 Millwright
547 32 38 Specified Mechanics and Repairers, n.e.c.
24 Auto Wrecker
39 Jewelry Repairman
549 44 38 Not Specified Mechanics and Repairers
44 Mechanic
Construction Trades
553 50 42 Supervisors, Brickmasons, Stonemasons, and Title Setters
554 50 43 Supervisors, Carpenters and Related Work
555 50 53 Supervisors, Electricians and Power Transmission
Installers
556 50 41 Supervisors, Painters, Paperhangers, and Plasterers
557 50 48 Supervisors, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters
558 54 50 Supervisors, n.e.c.
61 Building Contractor
47 Construction Foreman
57 Superintendent of a Construction Job
50 Supervisor of Skilled Craftsmen
563 36 29 Brickmasons and Stonemasons, Except Apprentices
36 Bricklayer
564 26 33 Brickmasons and Stonemasons Apprentices
565 31 33 Tile Setters, Hard and Soft
31 Ceramic-Tile Setter
566 34 30 Carpet Installers
34 Carpet Layer
567 39 34 Carpenters, Except Apprentices
43 House Carpenter
35 Scaffold Builder
569 29 37 Carpenter Apprentices
60

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
573 34 30 Drywall Installers
34 Sheet-Rock Installer
575 51 45 Electricians, Except Apprentices
51 Electrician
576 41 43 Electrician Apprentices
41 Apprentice Electrician
577 46 43 Electrical Power Installers and Repairers
46 Power Lineman
579 34 31 Painters, Construction and Maintenance
34 House Painter
583 31 37 Paperhangers
31 Paperhanger
584 35 31 Plasterers
35 Plasterer
585 45 38 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters, Except
Apprentices
45 Plumber
587 35 36 Plumber, Pipefitter, and Steamfitter Apprentices
35 Apprentice Plumber
588 38 29 Concrete and Terrazzo Finishers
38 Cement Finisher
589 30 34 Glaziers
30 Window Glass Installer
593 33 34 Insulation Workers
33 Insulation Installer
594 33 26 Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment Operators
33 Black-Top-Machine Operator
595 37 27 Roofers
37 Roofer
596 35 37 Sheetmetal Duct Installers
35 Sheet-Metal Duct Installer
597 43 37 Structural Metal Workers
43 Steel Rigger on a Construction Job
598 40 31 Drillers, Earth
40 Water Well Driller
599 36 30 Construction Trades, n.e.c.
36 Floor Refinisher
35 Highway Maintenance Person
Extractive Occupations
613 44 52 Supervisors, Extractive Occupations
44 Gang Boss for a Mining Company
614 42 36 Drillers, Oil Well
42 Oil-Well Driller
615 38 35 Explosives Workers
38 Dynamite Blaster
616 35 36 Mining Machine Operators
34 Coal Miner
36 Drilling Machine Operator in a Mine
617 29 39 Mining Occupations, n.e.c.
29 Dirt Shoveler in a Mine
61

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
Precision Production Occupations
633 47 49 Supervisors, Production Occupations
44 Foreman in a Factory
48 Station Chief for a Natural Gas Pipe Line
49 Supervisor in a Machine Shop
634 43 46 Tool and Die Makers, Except Apprentices
43 Tool and Die Maker
635 33 46 Tool and Die Maker Apprentices
636 31 37 Precision Assemblers, Metal
31 Sewing Machine Assembler
637 47 38 Machinists, Except Apprentices
47 Machinist
639 35 41 Machinist Apprentices
35 Apprentice to a Machinist
643 40 41 Boilermakers
40 Boilermaker
644 26 38 Precision Grinders, Fitters, and Tool Sharpeners
26 Tool Sharpener
645 38 48 Patternmakers and Model Makers, Metal
38 Pattern Maker in a Metal Shop
646 30 37 Lay-Out Workers
30 Fitter in a Shipyard
647 45 36 Precious Stones and Metals Workers
45 Jewelry Maker
649 38 37 Engravers, Metal
38 Metal Engraver
653 50 38 Sheet Metal Workers, Except Apprentices
50 Skilled Craftsman in a Metalworking Shop
654 38 45 Sheet Metal Worker, Apprentices
38 Apprentice Sheet Metalsmith
655 36 31 Miscellaneous Precision Metal Workers
36 Die Grinder
656 39 49 Patternmakers and Model Makers, Wood
39 Wood-Model Maker
657 44 34 Cabinet Makers and Bench Carpenters
44 Cabinet Maker
658 39 28 Furniture and Wood Finishers
39 Furniture Refinisher
659 36 34 Miscellaneous Precision Woodworkers
36 Wood Carver
666 36 26 Dressmakers
36 Custom Seamstress
667 42 26 Tailors
42 Tailor
62

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC SCORES
668 35 26 Upholsterers
35 Upholsterer
669 36 25 Shoe Repairers
36 Proprietor of a Shoe Repair Shop
36 Shoemaker
673 37 40 Apparel and Fabric Patternmakers
37 Preparer of Clothing Patterns
674 34 29 Miscellaneous Precision Apparel and Fabric Workers
39 Milliner
29 Tent Maker
675 32 29 Hand Molders and Shapers, Except Jewelers
32 Tombstone Carver
676 28 43 Patternmakers, Lay-Out Workers, and Cutters
28 Stencil Cutter
677 38 43 Optical Goods Workers
38 Lens Grinder
678 56 46 Dental Laboratory and Medical Appliance Technicians
56 Dental Crown and Bridge Maker
679 32 28 Bookbinders
32 Bookbinding Machine Operator
683 28 25 Electrical and Electronic Equipment Assemblers
28 Battery Assembler
684 30 33 Miscellaneous Precision Workers, n.e.c.
30 Rubber-Stamp Maker
686 35 33 Butchers and Meat Cutters
33 Butcher in a Store
37 Meat Cutter in a Meat Cutting Plant
687 35 29 Bakers
35 Baker
688 30 27 Food Batchmakers
30 Cheese Maker
689 42 42 Inspectors, Testers, and Graders
41 Car-Tester for an Automobile Factory
43 Elevator Examiner
693 40 25 Adjusters and Calibrators
40 Watch Assembler
694 38 39 Water and Sewage Treatment Plant Operators
38 Disposal Plant Operator
695 43 49 Power Plant Operators
43 Electric Power Station Attendant
696 40 50 Stationary Engineers
40 Pump-House Engineer
699 43 45 Miscellaneous Plant and System Operators
43 Oil Refining Equipment Operator
OPERATORS, FABRICATORS, AND LABORERS
Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors
703 41 33 Lathe and Turning Machine Set-Up Operators
41 Machine Set-up Man in a Factory
704 37 36 Lathe and Turning Machine Operators
37 Lathe Operator
63

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
705 32 36 Milling and Planing Machine Operators
32 Tire-Mold Engraver
706 35 27 Punching and Stamping Press Machine Operators
35 Metal-Stamping-Machine Operator
707 40 37 Rolling Machine Operators
40 Rolling Mill Operator in a Metal Shop
708 37 32 Drilling and Boring Machine Operators
37 Drill-Press Operator
709 23 30 Grinding, Abrading, Buffing, and Polishing Machine
Operators
23 Saw Sharpener
713 36 33 Forging Machine Operators
36 Forge Operator in a Steel Mill
714 40 45 Numerical Control Machine Operators
715 29 36 Miscellaneous Metal, Plastic, Stone, and Glass Working
Machine Operators
29 Key Maker
717 38 27 Fabricating Machine Operators, n.e.c.
38 Construction Riveter
719 34 27 Molding and Casting Machine Operators
34 Metal Caster in a Foundry
723 36 30 Metal Plating Machine Operators
36 Metal Plater
724 40 37 Heat Treating Equipment Operators
40 Steel Temperer
725 35 27 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Processing Machine
Operators
35 Foam Machine Operator
726 37 30 Wood Lathe, Routing and Planing Machine Operators
37 Wood Miller
727 34 24 Sawing Machine Operators
34 Sawmill Operator
728 30 25 Shaping and Joining Machine Operators
30 Bender Machine Operator in a Furniture Factory
729 27 21 Nailing and Tacking Machine Operators
27 Stalping-Machine Operator in a Furniture Factory
733 22 32 Miscellaneous Woodworking Machine Operators
22 Veneer Glue Spreader
734 39 37 Printing Machine Operators
39 Printing Press Operator
735 40 45 Photoengravers and Lithographers
40 Photoengraver
736 40 41 Typesetters and Compositors
40 Typesetter
64

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
737 37 31 Miscellaneous Printing Machine Operators
37 Paper Embossing Machine Operator
738 30 18 Winding and Twisting Machine Operators
30 Yarn Spinner in a Textile Mill
739 35 19 Knitting, Looping, Taping, and Weaving Machine
Operators
35 Loom Operator
743 28 21 Textile Cutting Machine Operators
28 Carpet Cutter for a Rug Manufacturer
744 28 17 Textile Sewing Machine Operators
28 Sewing Machine Operator
745 33 17 Shoe Machine Operators
33 Machine Operator in a Shoe Factory
747 29 18 Pressing Machine Operators
29 Steam Presser in a Garment Factory
748 32 23 Laundering and Dry Cleaning Machine Operators
32 Dry Cleaner
749 33 20 Miscellaneous Textile Machine Operators
33 Machine Operator in a Textile Mill
753 35 25 Cementing and Gluing Machine Operators
35 Heat-Sealing-Machine Operator
754 25 25 Packaging and Filling Machine Operators
25 Potato-Chip-Sacking-Machine Operator
755 32 30 Extruding and Forming Machine Operators
32 Rubber Mold Maker
756 26 32 Mixing and Blending Machine Operators
28 Cloth Dyer
23 Sausage Mixer
757 30 42 Separating, Filtering, and Clarifying Machine Operators
32 Beer Maker
27 Turpentine Distiller
758 30 26 Compressing and Compacting Machine Operators
30 Bailing-Machine Operator
759 30 28 Painting and Paint Spraying Machine Operators
30 Spray Painter in a Manufacturing Plant
763 23 30 Roasting and Baking Machine Operators, Food
23 Nut Roaster
764 25 29 Washing, Cleaning, and Pickling Machine Operators
25 Bottle-Washing-Machine Operator
765 28 22 Folding Machine Operators
28 Box-Folding-Machine Operator
766 40 36 Furnace, Kiln, and Oven Operators, Except Food
40 Steam Boiler Fireman
768 31 30 Crushing and Grinding Machine Operators
33 Crushing-Machine Operator
29 Flour Miller
769 34 26 Slicing and Cutting Machine Operators
34 Cutting Machine Operator
773 38 50 Motion Picture Projectionists
38 Motion Picture Projectionist
65

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
774 38 40 Photographic Process Machine Operators
38 Photograph Developer
777 30 29 Miscellaneous and Not Specified Machine Operators,
n.e.c.
22 Cigarette-Making Machine Operator
32 Paper-Making Machine Tender
36 Pill Machine Operator in a Pharmaceutical Plant
779 33 28 Machine Operators, Not Specified
28 Machine Attendant in a Factory
38 Machine Operator in a Factory
33 Semi-Skilled Worker
783 42 32 Welders and Cutters
42 Welder
784 33 21 Solderers and Blazers
33 Metal Solderer
785 35 27 Assemblers
35 Assembly Line Worker
36 Door Fitter in an Automobile Production Line
786 26 26 Hand Cutting and Trimming Occupations
27 Carpet Cutter in a Rug Store
24 Cattle Killer in a Slaughtering Plant
787 33 33 Hand Molding, Casting, and Forming Occupations
33 Plaster Mold Maker
789 31 34 Hand Painting, Coating, and Decorating Occupations
31 Sign Painter
793 42 35 Hand Engraving and Printing Occupations
42 Glass Engraver
794 35 25 Hand Grinding and Polishing Occupations
35 Watch-Crystal Grinder
795 32 28 Miscellaneous Hand Working Occupations
37 Hand Lace Maker
28 Tire Retreader
796 36 32 Production Inspectors, Checkers, and Examiners
44 Quality Checker in a Manufacturing Plant
28 Tea Taster
797 38 39 Production Testers
38 Radio Tester
798 42 30 Production Samplers and Weighers
42 Sample Collector in a Chemical Plant
799 33 25 Graders and Sorters, Except Agricultural
35 Cloth Grader in a Textile Mill
30 Packer in a Wholesale Vegetable Market
66

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
803 38 48 Supervisors, Motor Vehicle Operators
38 Supervisor of a Truck Delivery Service
804 30 32 Truck Drivers, Heavy
37 Trailer Truck Driver
23 Trash Hauler
805 30 35 Truck Drivers, Light
30 Local Delivery Truck Driver
806 24 38 Driver-Sales Workers
24 Bottled-Water Delivery Driver
24 Vending Machine Coin Collector
808 32 30 Bus Drivers
32 Bus Driver
809 28 33 Taxicab Drivers and Chauffeurs
28 Taxicab Driver
813 21 35 Parking Lot Attendants
21 Parking Lot Attendant
814 25 31 Motor Transportation Occupations, n.e.c.
25 Street-Sweeper Operator
823 42 50 Railroad Conductors and Yardmasters
42 Railroad Conductor
824 41 50 Locomotive Operating Occupations
48 Locomotive Engineer
35 Ore Train Motorman
825 40 46 Railroad Brake, Signal, and Switch Operators
40 Railroad Switchman
826 47 49 Rail Vehicle Operators, n.e.c.
47 Railroad Signal-Tower Operator
828 54 48 Ship Captains and Mates, Except Fishing Boats
47 Canal Barge Pilot
62 Ship's Captain
829 34 37 Sailors and Deckhands
34 Merchant Seaman
833 43 42 Marine Engineers
43 Deck Engineer on a Ship
834 28 36 Bridge, Lock and Lighthouse Tenders
28 Drawbridge Tender
843 45 49 Supervisors, Material Moving Equipment Operators
45 Crane-Crew Supervisor at a Port Facility
844 50 33 Operating Engineers
50 Heavy-Equipment Operator on a Road Construction
Job
845 34 41 Longshore Equipment Operators
34 Boom Operator at a Marine Loading Dock
848 36 35 Hoist and Winch Operators
36 Skip-Hoist Operator
849 42 36 Crane and Tower Operators
42 Power Crane Operator
853 38 30 Excavating and Loading Machine Operators
38 Steam-Shovel Operator
67

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX D: NAKAO-TREAS PRESTIGE SCORES AND
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES FOR ALL DETAILED
CATEGORIES IN THE 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION (continued)
855 34 28 Grader, Dozer, and Scraper Operators
34 Steam Roller Operator
856 35 29 Industrial Truck and Tractor Equipment Operators
35 Fork-Lift Driver
859 27 31 Miscellaneous Material Moving Equipment Operators
27 Conveyor-Belt Operator
Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers, and Laborers
863 27 50 Supervisors, Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, and Labor-
ers, n.e.c.
27 Car-Wash Supervisor
864 33 30 Helpers, Mechanics and Repairers
33 Mechanic's Helper
865 30 29 Helpers, Construction Trades
30 Carpenter's Helper
866 38 38 Helpers, Surveyor
38 Surveyor's Assistant
867 38 34 Helpers, Extractive Occupations
38 Blasting Powder Carrier in a Mine
869 36 29 Construction Laborers
36 Construction Laborer
873 31 30 Production Helpers
35 Blast Furnace Helper in a Steel Mill
26 Toolroom Helper in a Chain Saw Factory
875 28 25 Garbage Collectors
28 Garbage Collector
876 37 38 Stevedores
37 Longshoreman
877 23 38 Stock Handlers and Baggers
18 Grocery Bagger
24 Shelf Stocker in a Grocery Store
27 Stock Taker in a Department Store
878 37 26 Machine Feeders and Offbearers
37 Machine Feeder in a Manufacturing Plant
883 27 34 Freight, Stock, and Material Handlers, n.e.c.
26 Lumber Stacker
29 Stage Hand
26 Truck Driver's Helper
885 21 32 Garage and Service Station Related Occupations
21 Filling Station Attendant
22 Grease Monkey in a Service Station
887 19 30 Vehicle Washers and Equipment Cleaners
19 Carwash Attendant
20 Steam Cleaner for a Used Car Lot
68

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
888 22 23 Hand Packers and Packagers
21 Egg Crate Packer
23 Gift Wrapper in a Department Store
889 24 29 Laborers, Except Construction
26 Day Laborer
24 Scrap Sorter in a Shoe Factory
19 Street Sweeper
23 Unskilled Worker in a Factory
28 Warehouse Hand
APPENDIX E: OCCUPATIONAL TITLES AND SCORES NOT
USED TO CALCULATE CATEGORY SCORES
Astronaut (80)
Automobile Repairman (42)
Automobile Repairwoman (42)
Colonel in the Army (66)
Computer Tape Librarian (45)
Cosmetic Surgeon (70)
Court Transcriber (50)
Deep-Sea Diver (43)
Ditch Digger (23)
Druggist (63)
Enlisted Man in the Army (47)
Faith Healer (24)
Fashion Model (58)
First Aid Nurse (55)
Fooser (17)
Highway Engineer (65)
Househusband (36)
Housewife (51)
Mechanical Trouble Shooter (52)
My Own Occupation (55)
Neon-Sign Erector (33)
Nurse Practitioner (56)
Obstetrician/Gynecologist (79)
Office Girl (34)
Optician (65)
Panhandler (11)
Part-Time Clerk in an Office (31)
Persologist (45)
Professor of Biology in a College or University (74)
Professor of Business Administration in a College or University (71)
Professor of Drama (62)
Professor of English (72)
Professor of Foreign Languages (70)
Professor of History (73)
Professor of Mathematics (78)
Professor of Physics in a College or University (75)
69

KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
APPENDIX E: OCCUPATIONAL TITLES AND SCORES NOT
USED TO CALCULATE CATEGORY SCORES (continued)
Professor of Psychology in a College or University (74)
Professor of Social Work in a College or University (66)
Prostitute (14)
Psychiatrist (72)
Restaurant Critics for a Newspaper (41)
Retiree (43)
Skilled Craftsman in a Factory (52)
Street Corner Drug Dealer (13)
Surgeon (87)
Temporary Clerk in an Officer (30)
The Occupation of My Father When I Was Growing Up (51)
The Occupation of My Spouse (52)
Toll Bridge Collector (28)
Tree Surgeon (40)
TV Anchorman (60)
TV Anchorwoman (70)
Water Well Drilling Roughneck (32)
REFERENCES
Counts, G. S. 1925. "The Social Status of Occupations: A Problem in Vocational
Guidance." School Review 33:1-27.
Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational
Structure. New York: Wiley.
Davis, James A. 1979. "Background Variables and Opinions in the 1972-1977
NORC General Social Surveys: Ten Generalizations About Age, Education,
Occupational Prestige, Race, Religion, and Sex, and Forty-Nine Opinion
Items." General Social Survey Topical Reports, No. 2. Chicago: National
Opinion Research Center.
Davis, James A., and Tom W. Smith. 1991. General Social Surveys, 1972-1990:
Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
. 1992. The NORC General Social Survey: A User's Guide. Newbury
Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
de Lillo, A., and A. Schizzerotto. 1985. La valutazione sociale dellde
occupazioni. Una scala di stratificazione occupazionale per l'Italia
contemporanes. Bologna, Italy: Societa editrice il Mulino.
Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1961. "A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations." In
Occupations and Social Status, edited by A.J. Reiss, Jr., et al. New York:
Free Press of Glencoe.
Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser. 1976. "Prestige or Socioeco-
nomic Scales in the Study of Occupational Achievement." Sociological Meth-
ods and Research 4:403-22.
70

UPDATING PRESTIGE AND SOCIOECONOMIC
SCORES
Goldthorpe, John H., and Keith Hope. 1974. The Social Grading of Occupa-
tions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartman, Moshe. 1979. "The Grading of Occupations by Sociologists." Quality
and Quantity 13:1-19.
Hauser, Robert M., and David L. Featherman. 1977. The Process of Stratifica-
tion: Trends
and Analyses. New York: Academic Press.
Hodge, Robert M., 1981. "The Measurement of Occupational Status." Social
Science Research 10:396-415.
Hodge, Robert M., and Peter H. Rossi. 1978. "Intergroup Consensus in Occupa-
tional Prestige Ratings: A Case of Serendipity Lost and Regained." Sozialwis-
senschafliche Annalen Band 2:B59-73.
Hodge, Robert M., Paul M. Siegel, and Peter M. Rossi. 1964. "Occupational
Prestige in the United States, 1925-1963." American Journal of Sociology
70:286-302.
Kraus, Vered. 1976. "Social Grading of Occupations." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew
University, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Mathiowetz, Nancy A. 1992. "Errors in Reports of Occupation." Public Opin-
ion Quarterly 56:352-55.
Mellow, Wesley, and Hal Sider. 1983. "Accuracy of Responses in Labor Market
Surveys: Evidence and Implications." Journal of Labor Economics. 1:331-44.
Nakao, Keiko. 1992. "Occupational Prestige." In Encyclopedia of Sociology,
Vol. 3, edited by Edgar F. Borgatta and Marie L. Borgatta, pp. 1388-91. New
York: MacMillan.
Nakao, Keiko, and Judith Treas. 1990. "Computing 1989 Occupational Prestige
Scores." General Social Survey Methodological Reports No. 70. Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center.
- . 1991. "Occupational Prestige Revisited: Twenty-Five Years of Stability
and Change." Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles.
. 1992. "Computing the 1989 Socioeconomic Index." General Social Sur-
vey Methodological Reports No. 74. Chicago, National Opinion Research
Center.
National Opinion Research Center (NORC). 1989. Cumulative Codebook for
the General Social Survey. Chicago.
Neitz, J. A. 1935. "The Depression and the Social Status of Occupations." The
Elementary School Journal 35:454-461.
Reiss, Albert J., Jr. 1961. Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press
of Glencoe.
Siegel, Paul M. 1971. "Prestige in the American Occupational Structure." Ph.D.
diss., University of Chicago.
Smith, M. 1943. "An Empirical Scale of Prestige Status of Occupations." Ameri-
can Sociological Review 13:185-92.
Smith, Tom W., Sara P. Crovitz, and Christopher Walsh. 1988. "Measuring
Occupation: A Comparison of 1970 and 1980 Occupation Classification Sys-
tems of the Bureau of the Census." GSS Methodological Reports No. 59.
Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
71

72 KEIKO NAKAO AND JUDITH TREAS
Stevens, Gillian, and Joo Hyun Cho. 1985. "Socioeconomic Indexes and the
New 1980 Census Occupational Classification Scheme." Social Science Re-
search 14:142-68.
Stevens, Gillian, and David L. Featherman. 1981. "A Revised Socioeconomic
Index of Occupational Status." Social Science Research 10:364-95.
Stevens, Gillian, and Elizabeth Hoisington. 1987. "Occupational Prestige and
the 1980 U.S Labor Force." Social Science Research 16:74-105.
Treas, Judith, and Andrea Tyree. 1979. "Prestige Versus Socioeconomic Status
in the Attainment Processes of American Men and Women." Social Science
Research 14:142-68.
Treiman, Donald J. 1977. Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective.
New York: Academic Press.
Treiman, Donald J., William T. Bielby, and Man-Tsun Cheng. 1989. "Evaluating
a Multiple-Imputation Method for Recalibrating 1970 U.S. Census Detailed
Industry Codes to the 1980 Standard." Sociological Methodology 18:309-45.
U.S Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 Census of Population: Classified Index of
Industries and Occupations. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1987. The Relationship Between the 1970 and 1980
Industry and Occupation Classification Ssytems. Unpublished documentation.