Social Mobility: Sociology, Types & Examples 

Social mobility in sociology means the movement of individuals or groups up or down the social hierarchy, usually measured by changes in income, education, or occupation. It can occur across a lifetime or between generations, and is shaped by factors like education, family background, and social policies. Sociologists study it to understand inequality and opportunities in society.

Types of Social Mobility

Sociologists distinguish between several kinds of social mobility, grouped into two main pairs: vertical vs horizontal mobility and intergenerational vs intragenerational mobility.

Each captures a different way that individuals or families move within a social class system.

Vertical vs Horizontal Mobility

This distinction centres on whether a change in position involves a shift up or down the social hierarchy or simply a move to a different role at the same level.

Vertical Mobility: This is the type of mobility sociologists are most interested in. It involves a person’s occupational status or social class moving either upward or downward.

Upward Vertical Mobility:

This refers to an increase or an upward shift in socioeconomic class.

For example, a plumber’s daughter becoming a physician is an instance of upward mobility.

In the United States, education is a key vehicle for this kind of movement; attaining a college degree, or a graduate or professional degree, makes it much more likely for a person to end up in a high-paying job.

The ‘American Dream’ is built on the belief in upward mobility through hard work and talent.

However, while such mobility exists, great leaps in social class are rare, and one’s chances are heavily influenced by the socioeconomic status of one’s parents.

Downward Vertical Mobility:

This is the lowering of one’s social class.

This can be caused by various factors such as business setbacks, unemployment, illness, dropping out of school, or getting a divorce.

In recent decades, the U.S. has seen a wave of downward structural mobility due to recessions and the outsourcing of high-paying manufacturing jobs, forcing some workers into lower-paying positions.

Sociologist Katherine Newman describes the immense social and psychological costs of this, including lowered self-esteem, despair, and depression, particularly in a society that measures self-worth by occupational status.

Horizontal Mobility: This type of mobility involves changing from one occupation to another at the same social class level. Examples include an army captain becoming a public school teacher or a restaurant server becoming a taxi driver.

Since horizontal mobility does not involve a change in occupational status or social class, sociologists are generally less interested in studying it.

---

Intergenerational vs Intragenerational Mobility

This pair of concepts distinguishes between mobility that occurs across generations of a family and mobility that occurs within an individual’s own lifetime.

Intergenerational Mobility: This refers to social mobility from one generation to the next within the same family. It is a difference in social class between different generations of a family.

Upward Intergenerational Mobility:

This occurs when children end up in a higher-paying or more prestigious job than their parents.

For example, if the daughter of a hairdresser becomes a college professor, she has experienced upward intergenerational mobility.

Downward Intergenerational Mobility:

This happens when children of parents in a higher class end up in a lower-class position. An example would be if a lawyer’s son becomes a carpenter.

Patterns of intergenerational mobility can also reflect long-term societal changes.

Research has shown that a family’s socioeconomic status greatly affects their children’s chances for success, making it more likely for them to achieve upward mobility if they come from an advantaged background.

Intragenerational Mobility: This refers to changes in a person’s social mobility over the course of their own lifetime. It describes mobility within a single generation.

Upward Intragenerational Mobility:

This is experienced when an individual moves up the social ladder during their life.

For instance, if you start as an administrative assistant and eventually become an upper-level manager, you have experienced upward intragenerational mobility.

Downward Intragenerational Mobility:

This occurs when a person moves down the social hierarchy in their lifetime.

For example, if an upper-level manager gets laid off due to corporate downsizing, they have experienced downward intragenerational mobility.

Intragenerational mobility can also highlight differences between siblings; the wealth and prestige experienced by one person may be quite different from that of their siblings.

---

Structural Mobility

Structural mobility occurs when large-scale social or economic changes cause entire groups to move up or down the social hierarchy at the same time.

Unlike intergenerational or intragenerational mobility, which focus on individuals or families, structural mobility is a collective shift shaped by transformations in society itself.

Major drivers include industrialisation, which created new factory and middle-class jobs in the 20th-century U.S. and led to widespread upward mobility.

Technological change can eliminate old jobs while creating new ones, pushing some groups downward while lifting others.

Economic recessions and outsourcing have also forced many people into lower-paying work.

Sociologists link structural mobility to broader social change.

Functionalist theorists see it as part of societal differentiation, while conflict theorists emphasise economic restructuring and class struggle. In either case, the economy is the key driver.

Structural mobility reminds us that opportunities are not shaped only by personal effort; they depend heavily on the wider historical and economic context that opens or closes paths to mobility.

---

Examples

Both the UK and the US are formally “open” class systems, but mobility is constrained by social class, race, and inequality.

The American Dream ideal is undermined by structural barriers, while UK mobility is heavily shaped by persistent educational inequalities.

In contrast, Scandinavian social democracies demonstrate higher levels of mobility, suggesting that policy choices strongly influence opportunity structures.

The “American Dream” in the US

The United States is often associated with the American Dream – the belief that hard work and ambition can secure upward mobility regardless of background.

Stories of figures like Abraham Lincoln or Barack Obama embody this ideal. However, sociologists argue the dream often functions more as a cultural myth than a lived reality.

• Unequal Opportunity: Resources such as quality education and well-paid jobs are unequally distributed. WASP elites historically enjoy greater advantages compared to working-class Whites, Black Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.

• Barriers for Minorities: Studies show discrimination in hiring, with “white-sounding” names receiving more callbacks than “African American-sounding” ones. Even with similar education, African Americans and Latinos achieve less upward mobility than White counterparts.

• Downward Trends: Katherine Newman’s research highlights a “withering American Dream”, as corporate downsizing and the decline of manufacturing jobs led to widespread downward mobility and psychological strain. The transition to a postindustrial economy has widened inequality between the “haves” and “have-nots.”

Mobility Patterns in the UK

The UK’s history also reveals shifting patterns of mobility.

• Industrialisation: In the 19th century, the move from agriculture to industry created new opportunities for upward mobility but also widened inequalities, as conflict theorists argue workers were exploited.

• Post-War Expansion: The growth of higher education and comprehensive schooling in the mid-20th century created new opportunities. Functionalists such as Young and Willmott described a “March of Progress,” with more symmetrical nuclear families and greater opportunities for advancement.

• Persistent Class Inequalities: Despite reforms, social class remains the strongest predictor of educational attainment. The attainment gap persists between pupils from professional and manual backgrounds. Middle-class parents use economic, cultural, and social capital to secure advantages, while working-class students may be deterred from university by fear of debt. Conflict theorists argue the system continues to reproduce inequality.

• Economic Change and Crime: Globalisation has reshaped mobility and related behaviours. Rising affluence from the 1960s–2000 increased property crime opportunities, while cheaper imported goods reduced burglary rates but contributed to new forms of street robbery.

Comparative Trends: US vs Europe

Comparative research shows the US has lower mobility than most other Western nations.

European and Scandinavian countries typically provide stronger social safety nets and invest more in social services.

For example, Sweden and Denmark combine market economies with robust welfare states, resulting in less inequality and greater mobility.

Generous policies such as subsidised parental leave promote gender equality and reduce structural barriers.

---

Causes of Social Mobility

The chances of moving up or down the social ladder are shaped by a range of interconnected influences.

Theoretical Perspectives

• Functionalists argue that mobility reflects meritocracy, with education and effort allowing talent to rise. They see mobility as functional for society because it ensures the most capable people fill the most important roles.

• Marxists and conflict theorists reject the idea of equal opportunity, emphasising that structural inequalities and capitalist systems ensure privilege is reproduced across generations. Education and policies, they argue, often serve ruling-class interests.

• Interactionists focus on the micro-level, showing how labelling, teacher expectations, and everyday discrimination shape individuals’ self-concept and opportunities, often reinforcing disadvantage.

Together, these perspectives illustrate that social mobility is not simply about individual ambition but is deeply influenced by broader social structures and interactions.

1. Education

Education is widely seen as the most important vehicle for upward mobility.

Functionalist theorists argue that schools act as a meritocracy, equipping students with skills and allocating them to roles based on talent and effort.

Higher qualifications, especially university degrees, strongly increase access to high-status and well-paid jobs.

Social democratic reforms such as the expansion of higher education opened professional opportunities to more working-class students.

However, conflict theorists like Marxists claim that education often reproduces inequality.

Mechanisms include the myth of meritocracy, which justifies unequal outcomes; the hidden curriculum, which teaches obedience and hierarchy; and tracking/streaming, which disproportionately places working-class and minority children in lower tracks.

Schools in deprived areas also suffer from fewer resources, reinforcing disadvantage.

2. Family

Family background is another decisive factor.

Parents transmit their social position through socialization and by passing on different forms of capital.

Middle-class parents typically encourage creativity and independent thinking, reflecting the autonomy of their jobs, while working-class parents emphasise obedience and conformity, preparing children for subordinate roles (Kohn).

Pierre Bourdieu highlighted how cultural capital (language styles, knowledge, values) gives middle-class children a better fit with school expectations.

Economic capital enables advantages like private tutoring, while social capital – networks and contacts – helps secure access to better schools or job opportunities.

Together, these forms of capital reproduce class inequalities across generations.

3. Discrimination

Discrimination creates structural barriers that limit mobility for many groups.

Research shows that racial discrimination in hiring persists, with identical CVs receiving more callbacks when paired with “white-sounding” names.

Institutional bias also operates in the criminal justice system, where minorities may face harsher treatment.

Gender inequality also restricts upward mobility: although women now outperform men in education, they continue to experience a pay gap, glass ceilings, and concentration in lower-paid sectors.

Within schools, teacher labelling and stereotyping by class, race, or gender can create self-fulfilling prophecies that lower achievement.

4. Government Policies

Government policies shape the overall environment for mobility.

Education reforms such as school marketisation and parental choice were intended to raise standards, but critics argue they mostly benefit middle-class families who can use their resources and knowledge to access the best schools.

Welfare and social policies addressing poverty, housing, and healthcare are also crucial, since poor living conditions and lack of opportunities trap families in cycles of disadvantage.

Measures such as affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation (e.g., the Civil Rights Act 1964) have aimed to address systemic barriers, though debates remain about their fairness and effectiveness.

Structural interventions – such as investing in early childhood education or tackling regional inequalities – are often seen as essential for expanding opportunity.

---

Implications

Social mobility carries far-reaching implications for society, the economy, and individuals.

These implications are understood very differently across sociological perspectives, particularly functionalism and conflict theory, and revolve around questions of social order, inequality, and life chances.

Implications for Society and the Economy

From a functionalist perspective, social mobility is essential for stability and efficiency.

• Role Allocation and Economic Efficiency: Davis and Moore argue that mobility allocates the most talented individuals to the most critical roles.
  
  Higher rewards – such as income and prestige – – motivate people to invest in education and training, ensuring that demanding professions like medicine or engineering are filled.
  
  In this sense, a meritocratic system that supports upward mobility is not just fair but functionally necessary for a strong economy.

• Social Stability and Integration: Mobility also promotes cohesion by providing a legitimate route for advancement.
  
  The belief that success is attainable through hard work, embodied in the ideology of the American Dream, helps sustain social order and discourages discontent.
  
  Education plays a central role here, acting as a bridge between family and wider society while sorting individuals into positions based on merit.

From a conflict theory perspective, the idea of mobility operates less as a reality and more as a mechanism that sustains inequality.

• Reproduction of Inequality: Conflict theorists argue that mobility largely serves to legitimate existing class structures.
  
  Families with greater economic, cultural, and social capital are able to secure the best schools and jobs for their children, reproducing privilege across generations.
  
  Practices such as tracking, standardised testing, and the hidden curriculum all reinforce the advantage of dominant groups while marginalising the poor.

• Ideology and Legitimation: Meritocracy and the American Dream are viewed as ideological tools that justify inequality.
  
  By framing success as the product of individual effort, the system shifts blame for failure onto the disadvantaged themselves.

• This encourages what Marx called false consciousness, preventing structural inequalities from being challenged.

Implications for the Individual

The presence – or absence – of mobility has profound consequences for people’s lives, shaping opportunities, self-concept, and behaviour.

• Life Chances and Well-Being: Position within the stratification system affects opportunities for health, education, and income.
  
  Upward mobility brings material security and improved prospects for one’s children, while downward mobility often results in lowered self-esteem, depression, and a sense of powerlessness, particularly in societies where occupational success defines self-worth.

• Identity and Social Interaction: Symbolic interactionists highlight how mobility influences identity.
  
  Charles Horton Cooley’s looking-glass self suggests that individuals construct self-concepts based on how they believe others perceive them.
  
  Those from lower classes may internalise stigma, while those at the top cultivate a sense of superiority.
  
  Nicola Ingram’s research shows that upwardly mobile working-class youth often face tension as they adapt to middle-class norms, sometimes at the expense of their original identities.

• Deviance and Crime: Limited legitimate opportunities for upward mobility can foster deviant responses.
  
  Robert Merton’s strain theory argues that when society promotes cultural goals like wealth but denies equal means of achieving them, individuals may innovate through crime.
  
  This implies that high barriers to mobility contribute to social problems such as crime rates among disadvantaged groups.

---

Measurement

Sociologists measure mobility using both objective indicators – such as occupation, education, and income – and subjective perceptions of class.

The choice of measure often reflects theoretical perspectives: functionalists prefer composite metrics like socioeconomic status (SES), while conflict theorists focus on structural inequalities in wealth and class relations.

1. Occupation

Occupation is one of the most widely used indicators.

• Prestige scores: National surveys rank jobs by prestige (e.g., physician: 86, janitor: 22). Intergenerational mobility is assessed by comparing a person’s score with their parents.

• Classification schemes: Systems like the UK’s ONS Social Class Scheme group occupations into categories (e.g., “higher managerial” vs. “routine manual”). Movement between these categories reflects mobility.

• Marxist models: Conflict theorists, such as Erik Olin Wright, argue mobility should be measured by control over production, autonomy, and authority rather than prestige alone.

2. Education

Education is both a pathway to and a measure of mobility.

• Qualifications: Comparing highest qualifications across generations (e.g., GCSEs vs. degrees) shows intergenerational shifts.

• School performance: Standardised test scores, enrolment rates, and type of institution attended (elite vs. non-elite) reveal inequality and opportunity.

• Cultural bias: Conflict theorists argue test outcomes often reflect class and cultural capital rather than merit.

3. Income and Wealth

Economic resources offer another crucial lens.

• Income mobility: Movement between income quintiles or out of poverty illustrates upward or downward shifts.

• Wealth: Assets such as property and investments, often inherited, highlight long-term class reproduction.

• Poverty lines and indicators: In the UK, eligibility for Free School Meals (FSMs) is used to track mobility among disadvantaged children.

4. Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Functionalists often combine occupation, income, and education into a composite SES score, offering a more comprehensive measure of class position and mobility.

This combined metric provides a more comprehensive picture of a person’s social standing and is used to measure mobility between different levels of the social hierarchy.

5. Subjective Measures

In addition to objective measures, sociologists sometimes use subjective methods, where individuals are asked to identify their own social class.

For example, the General Social Survey asks respondents to place themselves in the lower, working, middle, or upper class.

While useful for studying class identity and consciousness, these measures often diverge from objective criteria.

6. Research Methods

Mobility is studied using:

• Large-scale surveys:  Surveys like the Youth Cohort Study and the General Social Survey collect quantitative data on parental occupation, education, income, and respondents’ own achievements, allowing for statistical analysis of mobility trend

• Secondary data analysis of government statistics, like the U.S. Census Bureau or the UK’s Department for Children, Schools and Families.

• Qualitative interviews, which capture lived experiences of class movement, cultural capital, and identity. They help researchers understand the meanings people attach to their class background, the role of cultural capital, and how they navigate their educational and career choices.

Further Information

• Brown, P. (2013). Education, opportunity and the prospects for social mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(5-6), 678-700.
• Hout, M. (2015). A summary of what we know about social mobility. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 657(1), 27-36.
• Van Leeuwen, M. H., & Maas, I. (2010). Historical studies of social mobility and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 429-451.

References

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. Wiley.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

Goldthorpe, J. H. (1980). Social mobility and class structure in modern Britain. Oxford University Press.

Heckman, J. J., & Mosso, S. (2014). The economics of human development and social mobility. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 689–733. 

Ingram, N. (2011). Within school and beyond the gate: The complexities of being educationally successful and working class. Sociology, 45(2), 287–302.

OECD. (2010). A family affair. In Economic policy reforms 2010: Going for growth (pp. 181–198). OECD Publishing.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Free Press.

Saunders, P. (1995). Social class and stratification. Routledge.

Sorokin, P. A. (1927). Social mobility. Harper & Brothers.

Wright, E. O. (1997). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Empirical UK Studies

• Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2001). Class, mobility and merit: The experience of two British birth cohorts. European Sociological Review, 17(2), 81–101.

• Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1992). The constant flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies. Oxford University Press.

• Savage, M., Devine, F., Cunningham, N., Taylor, M., Li, Y., Hjellbrekke, J., … Miles, A. (2013). A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey experiment. Sociology, 47(2), 219–250.

Contemporary US Research

• Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. Simon & Schuster.

• Chetty, R., Grusky, D., Hell, M., Hendren, N., Manduca, R., & Narang, J. (2017). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398–406. 

International & Policy-Focused

• OECD. (2018). A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility. OECD Publishing. 

• Breen, R. (Ed.). (2004). Social mobility in Europe. Oxford University Press.