Three socioeconomic classes of rural students ages 6 to 18 were interviewed about their conceptions of the rich and poor and economic inequality. The 114 students in the sample were divided as follows: (1) middle class, 23; (2) working class, 61; and (3) lower class, 30. Responses of the students are analyzed according to Leahy's categories of descriptions of the rich and poor. These categories are (1) peripheral, referring to possessions, appearances, and behaviors; (2) central, referring to traits and thoughts; and (3) sociocentric, referring to life chances and class consciousness. Central characteristics, use of which increased with the respondent's age, were most frequently employed in defining classes of persons. Sociocentric responses were evident in describing the rich, while peripheral responses were used to describe the poor. Subjects seemed unable to explain inequalities in wealth. Both younger and older children viewed personal effort within the existing social structure as the main means of increasing wealth. It is suggested that rural children, though less isolated by socioeconomic class than urban children, may reflect a belief of limited socioeconomic mobility. Findings are interpreted from the perspective of three theoretical systems: cognitive developmental, functionalist, and conflict. Tentative implications for the social studies curriculum of elementary, junior, and senior high schools are presented. Includes 26 references and appendices. (CS)
Authors
- Peer Reviewed
- F
- Publication Type
- ['Reports - Research', 'Speeches/Meeting Papers']
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- Percentage of responses by superordinate categories 33
- P eripheral 33
- Central 33
- 26.8 33
- Peripheral 33
- Central 33
- Sociocentric 33
- Peripheral 33
- Central 33
- Sociocentric 33
- Peripheral 33
- Central 33
- Categories showing significant 34
- Rich 34
- Traits 34
- 4.45 34
- Dont know 34
- How get rich 34
- Dont know 34
- Self becoome rich 34
- Effort 34
- P .001 34
