The Class Conundrum
All researchers will be familiar with the class conundrum: How do we define social class? How has it changed? How do we measure it? How useful is it as a dividing line nowadays anyway?
In research, we often divide people into socioeconomic grades (SEGs). Most of the time, this is an estimation based on occupation of the chief income earner (CIE) within a household. While it is useful for gaining a broad understanding of distinct groups of people within society, there are a number of challenges to using this approach. For instance, occupation (and presumed income) doesn’t account for household expenses, so can’t give full insight on the level of financial comfort or freedom felt within each household.
A purely occupational view also won’t shed light on a person’s class identity. In the past, social hierarchy was directly linked to money and status. Nowadays, as our understanding of class has developed and broadened, it incorporates attitudes and values, and self-identification is commonplace. For example, the 40th edition of Nat Cen’s British Social Attitudes report (BSA 40) highlights that around one in three (32%) of those whose household income is in the highest income quartile feel working class, demonstrating that there is more to class identity than financial earnings. Additionally, the Social Mobility Commission states that social capital (the networks and relationships that enable resources and opportunities) in childhood is, among other things, a key driver of social mobility, which again reveals a more nuanced conception of class.
So, should we replace SEGs with self-identification? This is a complex question that - spoiler alert - this blog won’t answer. There’s a lot to consider when thinking about how to address the issue: how do we account for different understandings of class; the extent to which values and attitudes impact behaviour vs SEGs; if we allow self-identification for one demographic, shouldn’t we do it for others?
Despite the challenges and complexities to measuring social class, it remains a useful tool to differentiate groups of people and can help us to understand why they think and behave differently. In fact, BSA 40 found that in 2023 more people said that social class affects someone’s opportunities than in 1983 (77% vs 70%), demonstrating higher awareness of class as an indicator of life outcomes. Ultimately, the choice of how useful class is to your analysis and how you decide to measure it (whether you take an occupational, attitudinal, or self-identification approach) depends on the objectives of the project and researchers should use their discretion to make the best decision for them or their clients.
At Humankind Research, we are always keen to know more about things that could be relevant to our work in the charity sector, and the impact of social class on behaviour is no different. Our recent proprietary research which involved speaking to Gen Z and millennials to understand what ‘doing good’ means to them, has revealed that class background (i.e. occupation of the CIE in the household at age 14) plays a role in shaping someone’s outlook on life and charitable behaviours.
Our analysis uncovered that altruism is driven by a combination of (i) optimism about the future, (ii) a sense of responsibility for making change, and (iii) feeling capable to make a difference. Overall, only around one in three young people feel optimistic about the future (30%), responsible for making a positive change in society (33%), and capable of making that positive change (30%). However, this was not the same across the board - Gen Zs and millennials from a professional background are significantly more likely than those from a working-class background to feel optimistic (37% vs 23%), responsible (40% vs 31%), and capable (38% vs 25%).
…and this goes on to impact altruistic behaviours. Young people from a professional background are significantly more likely than their working-class peers to have campaigned on behalf of a charity or cause (72% vs 52%), donated money (66% vs 53%), volunteered (22% vs 14%), and fundraised (22% vs 12%).
This gap is hard to ignore and highlights a potential challenge for charities in engaging future altruists and the need to increase working-class young people’s sense of optimism, responsibility for making change, and capability to do so. For another perspective on young people and altruism, you can read more from our Audience Update on the differences between men and women here.
Honor Sullivan-Drage
Project Director