Strength of the Status Maintenance Motive

1. Abstract

The Strength of the Status Maintenance Motive Scale (German: Statuserhaltsmotiv-Skala) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to capture parental educational decision-making mechanisms within stratified educational systems. Grounded in sociological and microeconomic rational action theories—most notably Raymond Boudon’s model of secondary effects of social origin, Richard Breen and John H. Goldthorpe’s educational transition model, and Hartmut Esser’s model of educational investment—this instrument operationalizes two foundational dimensions of educational stratification: the subjective motivational aversion to downward intergenerational social mobility (status maintenance motive strength) and the subjective subjective utility or cognitive probability that distinct educational credentials will successfully reproduce the family’s socioeconomic status (perceived credential suitability for status maintenance). Developed within the Collaborative Research Center 504 (Sonderforschungsbereich 504: Rationalitätskonzepte, Entscheidungsverhalten und ökonomische Modellierung) at the University of Mannheim, the scale comprises four items: one item assessing the affective/evaluative strength of status maintenance adapted from Richard Fauser’s foundational research, and three items newly constructed to assess the conditional probability of status preservation associated with the three distinct secondary school-leaving certificates in Germany (Hauptschulabschluss, Realschulabschluss, and Abitur). Across a representative community sample of N = 992 parents of primary school students, the credential evaluation items demonstrated robust structural validity, resolving into a unidimensional principal component explaining 52.4% of total variance. The scale exhibited high criterion and construct validity, demonstrating that parents from upper service-class backgrounds (Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero [EGP] Class I) and higher Treiman Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale (SIOPS) tiers perceived minimal status-preservation capacity in lower credentials while perceiving vast motivational utility increments (threshold incentives) for academic track completion, whereas lower-status parents perceived vocational credentials as substantially adequate for status maintenance. This instrument provides an empirically validated, theoretically direct measurement operationalization that eliminates long-standing ambiguities in educational inequality research.

2. Keywords

Status maintenance motive, educational stratification, secondary effects of social origin, rational choice theory, intergenerational social mobility, educational decision-making, relative risk aversion, socioeconomic status, Treiman SIOPS, Goldthorpe class schema, primary school transition, psychometrics.

3. Authors

The instrument was developed and validated by researchers within Project A2 (“Educational Aspirations, Reference Groups, and Educational Decisions”) of the Sonderforschungsbereich 504 (SFB 504: Concepts of Rationality, Decision Behavior, and Economic Modeling) based at the University of Mannheim, Germany. The motivational strength component was adapted from prior sociological survey instruments formulated by Richard Fauser (1985) at the University of Konstanz in his investigations of working-class educational pathways.

• Institutional Affiliation: Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim (Universität Mannheim), L13, 15–19, 68131 Mannheim, Germany.
• Historical Formulation: Richard Fauser, Department of Sociology, University of Konstanz (Universität Konstanz), Universitätsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz, Germany.
• Data Archiving: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Data Archive for the Social Sciences (Data Archive Study Numbers: ZA5240 / DOI: 10.4232/1.12660 and ZA5241 / DOI: 10.4232/1.12925).

4. Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Strength of the Status Maintenance Motive Scale is to solve a central methodological and empirical bottleneck in the sociology of education: the direct empirical operationalization of parental status maintenance motives as formal rational mechanisms driving persistent social inequalities in educational attainment. Across advanced industrialized societies, children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds systematically achieve lower levels of academic certification than peers from more privileged backgrounds, even when controlling for cognitive ability and objective scholastic achievement. In classical sociology, this phenomenon is conceptualized under Raymond Boudon’s (1974) distinction between primary effects (differential scholastic performance driven by early resource endowments and home learning environments) and secondary effects (differential educational choices made at critical transition branching points among students with identical performance levels).

While theoretical accounts—such as Breen and Goldthorpe’s (1997) relative risk aversion model and Esser’s (1999) subjective expected utility (SEU) framework—postulate that secondary effects are predominantly generated by the universal desire of families to avoid intergenerational downward mobility, empirical tests had historically relied on indirect proxies. Prior researchers frequently operationalized status maintenance either by measuring whether parents desired a school track matching their own historical attainment or by treating residual class differences in transition rates after controlling for grades as unmeasured proof of status maintenance. Such indirect proxies suffered from significant confounds: educational expansion across successive generations devalued credentials, rendering raw attainment comparisons inaccurate, while residual inferential techniques failed to separate risk aversion from unobserved cultural or monetary constraints.

The present instrument resolves these challenges by establishing a dual measurement framework. First, it measures the raw motivational intensity of status maintenance—the degree to which an individual parent would experience subjective psychological distress or dissatisfaction if their child were to attain an occupational standing lower than their own. Second, it assesses the cognitive, subjective probability evaluations linking specific institutional credentials within a tracked educational system to successful status preservation. By anchoring evaluations directly to the parent’s (or partner’s) occupational prestige as an explicit baseline reference point, the instrument enables social scientists, developmental psychologists, and educational policy researchers to:

• Disentangle the affective valuation of social standing from the subjective cognitive calculus of credential utility;
• Calculate direct perceived transition incentives by computing differential score thresholds between adjacent educational tiers;
• Model micro-level parental track recommendations and enrollment decisions at pivotal developmental transition nodes (e.g., transition from primary school to tracked secondary school systems);
• Evaluate how institutional tracking structures interact with family socioeconomic position to reproduce class stratification.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by this instrument is the Status Maintenance Motive (Statuserhaltsmotiv) within educational contexts. In micro-sociological and psychological decision theories, this construct represents a domain-specific manifestation of relative risk aversion, status-loss aversion, and intergenerational utility transmission. Within the scale architecture, the construct is conceptualized as comprising two distinct yet functionally interdependent sub-dimensions:

1. Motivational Intensity / Affective Valuation of Status Maintenance

This sub-dimension captures the subjective importance and affective weight an actor places on preserving family social standing across generational transitions. It evaluates the intensity of anticipated negative utility or affective aversion that a parent would experience in the counterfactual event that their child entered an occupational status lower than their own. In rational choice models (e.g., Esser, 1999), this is formally represented by the parameter SV (the subjective evaluation of status loss, or social status valuation). Theoretically, the desire to prevent intergenerational downward mobility is hypothesized to operate as a structural universal across social strata: parents from both working-class and upper-middle-class origins are assumed to care deeply about preventing their offspring from experiencing downward mobility relative to the family’s established baseline. However, empirical verification requires assessing whether individual or subcultural variations in this affective drive exist, or whether motivational intensity remains invariant while subjective probabilities diverge.

2. Perceived Credential Suitability for Status Maintenance

The second sub-dimension constitutes the cognitive-evaluative parameter of the status maintenance construct. It captures the subjective conditional probability (P(Status Preservation | Credential_k)) that attaining a specific educational certification will enable the child to enter an occupational position equal to or higher in social standing than that of the parent. Rather than measuring the perceived academic difficulty or intrinsic prestige of the credential itself, this sub-dimension measures its instrumentally perceived sufficiency for intergenerational reproduction.

Because subjective social status is defined by an internal reference point—the family’s current position within the socioeconomic hierarchy—the perceived suitability of identical credentials diverges dramatically across social strata:

• Working-Class Reference Points: For parents positioned in lower occupational prestige tiers (e.g., semi-skilled or skilled manual laborers), lower secondary credentials (such as the German Hauptschulabschluss or Realschulabschluss) are historically and cognitively perceived as carrying a moderate-to-high probability of preserving family standing. Consequently, the incremental incentive to pursue the highest academic tier (Abitur) is perceived as relatively modest from a pure status-preservation perspective.
• Service-Class Reference Points: For parents occupying high occupational prestige tiers (e.g., upper service-class managers, higher civil servants, academic professionals), lower secondary credentials represent an almost certain guarantee of downward intergenerational mobility. For these families, only the highest academic track (Gymnasium leading to the Abitur) provides a viable probability of status preservation. This generates an exceptionally steep utility gradient between credential tiers, creating an intense, rational incentive to avoid non-academic tracks at all costs.

When researchers compute difference scores between adjacent credentials (e.g., Score_Realschule − Score_Hauptschule or Score_Abitur − Score_Realschule), the construct reveals the precise perceived transition incentive, capturing the marginal subjective gain in status security conferred by each step up the educational hierarchy.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Strength of the Status Maintenance Motive Scale is firmly situated at the intersection of micro-sociological rational choice theory, prospect theory, and the sociology of educational stratification. Its theoretical architecture integrates three foundational paradigms:

1. Raymond Boudon’s Model of Educational Stratification

In his seminal work Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality (1974), Raymond Boudon formulated a mathematical and analytical framework explaining why educational inequalities remain stubbornly persistent despite overall educational expansion. Boudon divided class-specific educational divergence into:

• Primary Effects: Differences in cultural and cognitive capital, physical learning resources, and stress levels that directly influence a child’s academic performance and test scores.
• Secondary Effects: Differences in the actual decisions made by families at institutional branching points, conditional on prior performance. Boudon argued that even when a working-class child and an upper-class child demonstrate identical school grades, their families face profoundly divergent cost-benefit equations, social distance vectors, and status-loss risks. The Status Maintenance Motive Scale was engineered precisely to operationalize the psychological and cognitive engine driving these secondary effects.

2. The Breen-Goldthorpe and Esser Rational Action Models

Modern rational choice approaches to educational transitions formalized Boudon’s intuitions into rigorous decision-theoretic models. Richard Breen and John H. Goldthorpe (1997) posited that educational actors operate under relative risk aversion: their primary educational goal is not the maximization of upward social mobility, but the minimization of downward social mobility. In the Breen-Goldthorpe model, parents and children evaluate tracks based on three explicit parameters:

1. The probability of academic success (P), which is partly structured by primary effects;
2. The direct and indirect opportunity costs of schooling (C);
3. The status maintenance value (B), representing the credential’s capacity to secure a class position at least equal to the class of origin.

Hartmut Esser (1999) expanded this framework within subjective expected utility (SEU) theory, formalizing the expected utility EU of choosing an educational track j as:

EU(j) = p_j · e_j − c_j + c_j^* · (−SV)

Where p_j is the probability of passing the track, e_j is the structural return or investment yield, c_j is direct costs, c_j^* represents the probability that failing or completing track j results in social status loss, and SV represents the subjective evaluation (disutility) of that status loss. The Status Maintenance Motive Scale operationalizes SV through Item 1, while Items 2 through 4 empirically measure the inverse of c_j^* across the three German secondary schooling tracks.

3. Prospect Theory and Asymmetric Loss Aversion

The scale’s theoretical foundation is further reinforced by behavioral economics and cognitive psychology, particularly Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s (1979) Prospect Theory. A central axiom of Prospect Theory is loss aversion: individuals evaluate prospective outcomes as gains or losses relative to a neutral reference point, and the psychological disutility of a loss is significantly greater than the utility of an equivalent gain. In educational decision-making, the current family socioeconomic status serves as the definitive reference point. Parents do not perceive educational trajectories on an abstract linear continuum; rather, trajectories projected below the parental baseline trigger intense loss aversion. This explains why families in high socioeconomic strata exhibit near-inelastic demand for academic secondary education: any alternative track is perceived as entering the loss domain.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the instrument was rigorously examined within the empirical validation study conducted by the University of Mannheim SFB 504 research team, utilizing a probability-based community sample of N = 992 parents of primary school children (specifically children attending Grade 2 in Southwest Germany). The validation analysis established multifaceted evidence for construct, criterion, and concurrent validity:

Construct and Criterion Validity via Stratified Reference-Point Shifts

Theoretical validity hinged on the core sociological hypothesis: if the items truly capture status maintenance relative to the parental baseline, perceived credential suitability must exhibit systematically divergent patterns when stratified across objective parental socioeconomic indicators. To test this, the authors categorized families across three independent objective status dimensions:

1. Occupational Prestige: Measured via Treiman’s Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale (SIOPS; Treiman, 1977), using the highest prestige score between both parents (sample mean M = 50.0, median ME = 49.0, SD = 11.5).
2. Parental Educational Attainment: Highest general educational credential in the household (13.8% Hauptschulabschluss, 33.8% Realschulabschluss / Mittlere Reife, 52.4% Abitur).
3. Social Class Schema: Categorization into the Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero (EGP) class schema based on ISCO-88 codes (24.0% Class I Upper Service Class, 36.9% Class II Lower Service Class, 26.8% Class III Routine Non-Manual, 3.6% Class IV Small Proprietors, 4.9% Classes V/VI Skilled Manual/Supervisors, 3.4% Class VIIa Non-Skilled Manual Workers).

The empirical findings precisely mirrored theoretical predictions:

• Lower Credential Sensitivity: For the basic secondary certificate (Hauptschulabschluss), parents in the highest occupational prestige quartile rated its suitability for maintaining family status at an average of only M = 1.6 on the 7-point scale, whereas parents in the lowest prestige quartile rated it at M = 3.8. This profound difference confirms that lower-status parents consider vocational credentials viable for social reproduction, whereas high-status parents view them as guaranteeing status loss.
• Upper Credential Invariance: In stark contrast, the highest secondary certificate (Abitur) was judged by all social strata as virtually guaranteeing family status preservation (highest prestige quartile M = 6.1; lowest prestige quartile M = 6.3).
• Magnitude of Track Differences: When computing total suitability differentials between the highest and lowest credentials (Abitur minus Hauptschulabschluss), parents in the highest prestige quartile exhibited an enormous mean gap of 4.5 scale points, whereas parents in the lowest quartile exhibited a gap of only 2.5 scale points.

Incentive Structure and Transition Thresholds

Further validity was demonstrated by examining adjacent credential differentials. For the transition step from Realschule to Hauptschule (RS−HS), families with intermediate occupational prestige exhibited the strongest incentive values (M = 2.70 in the second quartile; M = 2.22 in the third quartile), whereas the highest and lowest quartiles showed lower differential sensitivity (M = 1.56 and M = 1.75, respectively). Conversely, for the transition step from Abitur to Realschule (Abi−RS), the perceived incentive grew monotonically with parental status: highest prestige quartile parents demonstrated a massive incentive differential of M = 3.00 (SD = 2.00), dropping to M = 1.67 in the third quartile, M = 1.12 in the second quartile, and a mere M = 0.81 (SD = 1.68) in the lowest quartile. This exact pattern was replicated across EGP classes (Upper Service Class Abi−RS M = 2.78 vs. Manual Workers M = 0.67) and parental schooling levels (Abitur holders Abi−RS M = 2.42 vs. Hauptschule holders M = 0.46).

Concurrent and Criterion Validity with Educational Aspirations

The instrument’s validity was further corroborated through its strong structural association with validated batteries assessing parents’ realistic and idealistic educational aspirations. Parents exhibiting elevated perceived suitability differentials for the Abitur demonstrated significantly higher realistic expectations that their children would successfully attain the Abitur, even after introducing rigorous controls for children’s standardized cognitive achievement scores and classroom grades. This provides definitive empirical evidence that the instrument successfully isolates secondary effects from primary performance effects.

8. Reliability

In classical psychometric evaluation, reliability coefficients such as Cronbach’s alpha or McDonald’s omega are designed for homogeneous, multi-item reflective scales where all items represent parallel measures of a single underlying construct. For the Strength of the Status Maintenance Motive instrument, reliability evaluation must account for the distinct conceptual roles of the two sub-components:

• Item 1 (Motivational Strength): Operates as a single-item affective indicator. In survey research and microeconomics, preference parameters (such as risk aversion or time preference) are commonly assessed via robust single-item measures. Internal consistency metrics cannot be mathematically computed for a single item; however, test-retest and structural stability across socio-demographic sub-samples confirmed that status maintenance intensity operates as a stable evaluative disposition.
• Items 2–4 (Credential Suitability Battery): While Items 2, 3, and 4 form a three-item battery, they represent an ordinal hierarchy of distinct institutional options rather than interchangeable manifestations of a single latent trait. A parent is not expected to rate all three certificates identically; in fact, the theoretical validity of the tool requires that parents rate them dissimilarly based on their family status.

In the SFB 504 validation dataset (N = 977 valid respondents), the three credential suitability items were submitted to principal component analysis. The items loaded onto a single principal component with an eigenvalue of 1.57, accounting for 52.4% of total variance. The component loadings were λ = .80 for Hauptschulabschluss suitability, λ = .89 for Realschulabschluss suitability, and λ = .37 for Abitur suitability. The comparatively lower loading of the Abitur item reflects a structural ceiling effect: across all social classes, the Abitur is uniformly perceived as high in status maintenance capacity, resulting in lower relative variance compared to the intermediate and lower credentials. Classical internal consistency across all three items yielded moderate inter-item correlations, but methodologists emphasize that differential scoring (adjacent credential subtracting) provides the most reliable and psychometrically sound metric for subsequent regression and structural equation modeling.

9. Factor Analysis

To evaluate the latent dimensionality of the credential evaluation battery, the SFB 504 researchers conducted an exploratory principal component analysis (PCA) on the responses of N = 977 parents who provided complete data across all three credential items. The empirical factor structure and associated psychometric parameters are detailed below:

Eigenvalue & Variance Explained:

• Eigenvalue of Component 1: 1.57
• Total Variance Explained: 52.4%

Substantive Interpretation: The factor solution clearly demonstrates that the three credential evaluation items resolve into a single dominant dimension reflecting the perceived baseline permeability of the educational system for status preservation. The exceptionally high loadings of the Hauptschulabschluss (.80) and Realschulabschluss (.89) indicators signify that variance in systemic status reproduction expectations is primarily captured at the non-academic tiers. Because the Abitur is universally perceived as sufficient for status maintenance by nearly all social strata (mean values exceeding 6.0 across all quartiles), its communality (h² = .13) is attenuated by restricted variance. Substantively, this confirms that educational inequality is not driven by divergent beliefs about whether academic tracks maintain status, but by divergent beliefs about whether non-academic tracks are sufficient.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Structured survey measurement battery / Psychometric questionnaire for sociological and psychological research.
• Target Population: Parents of school-aged children (specifically validated for parents of primary school children facing secondary track decisions).
• Administration Format: Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), standardized paper-and-pencil questionnaire, or online survey administration.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes embedded within a broader sociodemographic or educational survey battery.
• Total Number of Items: 4 items.
  • Subscale A: Motivational Strength of Status Maintenance (Item 1).
  • Subscale B: Perceived Suitability of Credentials for Status Maintenance (Items 2, 3, and 4).
• Response Formats:
  • Item 1: 7-point Likert-type rating scale with anchored endpoints: 1 = “gar nicht stören” (not bother at all) to 7 = “sehr stören” (bother very much).
  • Items 2–4: 7-point subjective probability rating scales with anchored endpoints: 1 = “ausgeschlossen” (completely ruled out / impossible) to 7 = “ganz sicher” (completely certain).
• Scoring and Operationalization Procedures: Researchers may operationalize the scale in two distinct analytical modes depending on research questions:
  • Absolute Level Scoring: Raw scores from Items 2, 3, and 4 are entered directly into multivariate models to assess absolute subjective status-preservation expectations for each credential.
  • Differential Threshold Scoring (Transition Incentives): To eliminate individual response styles and capture true transition incentives, researchers calculate adjacent credential difference scores:
    • Incentive Step 1 (RS−HS): Score of Item 3 minus Score of Item 2.
    • Incentive Step 2 (Abi−RS): Score of Item 4 minus Score of Item 3.
    • Total Academic Incentive (Abi−HS): Score of Item 4 minus Score of Item 2.
  • Subjective Expected Utility Weighting: To fully instantiate Esser’s SEU model, researchers multiply the conditional probability of status loss (e.g., 7 minus Credential Suitability Score) by the motivational disutility score from Item 1.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Development: 2003 (data collected during the 2002/2003 school year; documented and archived in subsequent GESIS releases).
• Development Context: Collaborative Research Center 504 (SFB 504), Project A2 (“Educational Aspirations, Reference Groups, and Educational Decisions”), funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG) at the University of Mannheim.
• Copyright and Access: Open academic access. The scale is documented in the GESIS repository (Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen – ZIS). It is freely accessible for non-commercial scientific research, academic teaching, and educational policy studies without licensing fees.
• Primary Data Archives:
  • Data Study ZA5240: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.12660
  • Data Study ZA5241: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.12925

12. References

• Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure, residential mobility, and school dropout: A research note. Demography, 31(4), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061793
• Becker, R. (2000). Klassenlage und Bildungsentscheidungen: Eine empirische Anwendung der Theorie rationaler Bildungsentscheidungen von Breen und Goldthorpe. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 52(3), 450–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-000-0068-1
• Becker, R. (2003). Bildungsaspirationen von Migranten: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Erklärung von Bildungsungleichheiten zwischen Einheimischen und Zuwanderern. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 23(3), 263–285.
• Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1999). Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: Rethinking the “pathology of matriarchy”. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 321–365. https://doi.org/10.1086/210314
• Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in Western society. John Wiley & Sons.
• Breen, R. (2001). A rational choice model of educational inequality. Rationality and Society, 13(1), 5–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/104346301013001001
• Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society, 9(3), 275–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/104346397009003002
• Breen, R., & Yaish, M. (2006). Testing the Breen-Goldthorpe model of educational differentials. In S. L. Morgan, D. B. Grusky, & G. S. Fields (Eds.), Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research in sociology and economics (pp. 232–258). Stanford University Press.
• De Graaf, P. M. (1986). The impact of financial and cultural resources on educational attainment in the Netherlands. Sociology of Education, 59(4), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112349
• Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children’s educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 746–761. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096320
• Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development, 65(2), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131385
• Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1992). The constant flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies. Clarendon Press.
• Erikson, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (1996). Explaining class inequality in education: The Swedish test case. In R. Erikson & J. O. Jonsson (Eds.), Can education be equalized? The Swedish case in comparative perspective (pp. 1–64). Westview Press.
• Esser, H. (1999). Soziologie: Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 1: Situationslogik und Handeln. Campus Verlag.
• Evans, W. N., & Schwab, R. M. (1995). Finishing high school and starting college: Do Catholic schools make a difference? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(4), 941–974. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946645
• Fauser, R. (1985). Bildungsverläufe in Arbeiterfamilien. Universität Konstanz.
• Fejgin, N. (1995). Factors contributing to the academic excellence of American Jewish and Asian students. Sociology of Education, 68(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112765
• Ganzach, Y. (2000). Parents’ education, cognitive ability, educational expectations and educational attainment: Interactive effects. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158204
• Goldthorpe, J. H. (1996). Class analysis and the reorientation of class theory: The case of persisting differentials in educational attainment. British Journal of Sociology, 47(3), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.2307/591365
• Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 84–117. https://doi.org/10.1086/261808
• Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1995). The determinants of children’s attainments: A review of methods and findings. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(4), 1829–1878.
• Helmke, A., Jäger, R. S., Schmidt, H.-W., & Wagner, W. (2002). Grundschulunterricht: Leistungsbeurteilung und Lernförderung. Beltz Verlag.
• International Labour Office. (1990). International Standard Classification of Occupations: ISCO-88. International Labour Organization.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
• Kalmijn, M. (1994). Mother’s education and father’s education as components of family background: Changes over time. American Sociological Review, 59(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095954
• Kristen, C. (1999). Schulische Übergangsentscheidungen im Einwanderungskontext. Universitätsverlag Konstanz.
• Light, A., & Strayer, W. (2000). Determinants of college completion: School quality or student ability? The Journal of Human Resources, 35(2), 299–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/146327
• Myers, D. E., Milne, A. M., Baker, K., & Levin, H. M. (1987). Student discipline and high school performance. Sociology of Education, 60(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112616
• Need, A., & De Jong, U. (2000). Educational differentials in the Netherlands: Testing rational action theory. Rationality and Society, 13(1), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/104346301013001003
• Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on student achievement. Social Forces, 79(3), 881–911. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0021
• Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583–625. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003583
• Shavit, Y., & Kraus, V. (1990). Educational transitions in Israel: A test of the industrialization hypothesis. European Sociological Review, 6(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036551
• Steelman, L. C., & Mercy, J. A. (1983). Sex, sibship size, and educational achievement: A review and research note. Sociology of Education, 56(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112660
• Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. Academic Press.
• Wilson, M. (2001). Bildungserträge im Wandel: Bildungsrenditen in Westdeutschland von 1976 bis 1995. Leske + Budrich.
• Wojtkiewicz, R. A. (1993). Simulating the effects of parental educational attainment on children’s educational attainment. Social Science Research, 22(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1993.1013

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)