School of Political and Social Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Br J Sociol. 2020 Nov;71(5):898-901. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12777. Epub 2020 Oct 5.
This commentary critiques Betthäuser, Bourne and Bukodi's (2020) paper which finds that cognitive ability does not substantially mediate class of origin effects on educational and occupational outcomes. From these results, they conclude that cognitive ability is only of minor importance for social stratification, reasserting their view of the primacy of class origins for social stratification. The central issue surrounding cognitive ability in social stratification is its effects on socioeconomic attainments vis-à-vis socioeconomic origins, not the extent that cognitive ability mediates classorigin effects. Their analytical strategy of estimating the extent that cognitive ability mediates class origineffects is misleading because: it ignores the only moderate associations of socioeconomic origins with educational and occupational outcomes; the stronger direct effects of cognitive ability; the associations of parents' ability with their own socioeconomic attainments; and the genetic transmission of cognitive ability and other traits relevant to social stratification from parents to their children.
这篇评论批评了 Betthäuser、Bourne 和 Bukodi(2020 年)的论文,该论文发现认知能力并没有在很大程度上中介出身阶层对教育和职业结果的影响。他们从这些结果中得出结论,认为认知能力对于社会分层只有次要重要性,重申了他们对出身阶层对社会分层的首要性的观点。认知能力在社会分层中的核心问题是它对社会经济成就相对于社会经济出身的影响,而不是认知能力在多大程度上中介出身阶层的影响。他们评估认知能力在多大程度上中介出身阶层影响的分析策略具有误导性,因为:它忽略了社会经济出身与教育和职业结果之间仅有的适度关联;认知能力的直接影响更强;父母能力与自身社会经济成就的关联;以及认知能力和与社会分层相关的其他特质从父母向子女的遗传传递。