|DUNCAN OTIS DUDLEY, and JAY W. ARTIS. Social Stratification in a Pennsylvania Rural Conununity. State College, Pa.: Pennsylvania Agricultural Experimentation Bull. 543, 1951.|
|--. "Some Problems of Stratification Research", Rural Sociology, Vol. XVI ( March, 1951), pp. 17-29.|
|ELLIS ROBERT A. "Social Stratification and Social Relationships: An Empirical Test of the Disjunctiveness of Social Class", American Sociological Review, Vol. XXII ( October, 1957), pp. 570-78.|
|GEE WILSON. "A Qualitative Study of Rural Depopulation in a Single Township: 1900-1930", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXXIX ( September, 1933), pp. 210-21.|
The friendship responses obtained were categorized in a number of different ways, but for the sake of brevity, we shall limit our present discussion to only three: (1) Mutual Friendships, where the respondent and sample subject both indicate being very friendly or friendly with each other. (2) Friendship Choice, where the respondent indicates being very friendly or friendly with the sample subject without necessarily having that choice reciprocated. (3) Neutral Choice, where the respondent indicates being neutral in his feelings toward the subject.
Rank order correlations computed between the social status of the subjects and the median social status of their friends in the sample yielded coefficients of .78, .62, and -- .87, respectively, when social status was estimated from the prestige-rating- technique data. When Hollingshead's occupational scale was used to estimate social status, significantly lower correlations of .43, .29, and -- .15 were obtained. That these differences cannot be completely attributed to the inappropriateness of using Hollingshead's occupational scale in a different cultural context is evidenced by the fact that a .81 correlation was initially found between occupational status and social status, as estimated from the prestige-rating technique.