Sspecific value differences among socioeconomic levels have been well documented.' study of values among classes has been concerned chiefly with discovering variations and describing them in a context of differentiation. In a study by one of the authors conducted in a midwestern city,2 value differences and differences in evaluating occupations were examined. Specifically, socioeconomic status and ethnicity were analyzed for their impact on health knowledge, values, and practices, with emphasis on discovering variations in values; one set consisting of 14 desiderata, the second set consisting of 14 occupations.3 Each of these, although part of the larger study, was a separate and self-contained entity. Each was designed to contain at least one item directly related to health and medicine, with most of the items, however, referring to other institutional spheres. There are four hypotheses central to this analysis of the data: First, upper socioeconomic level respondents differ in their values from lower socioeconomic level respondents; second, there are fewer value differences between higher and lower level respondents in the rankings of occupations than in the rankings of desiderata; third, all respondents manifest greater consensus in ranking occupations than in ranking desiderata; and finally, the amount of consensus varies directly with socioeconomic status. In the sociological literature on values, a variety of definitions has been used. Central to all of these is the process of evaluation, either by ranking objects in terms of some external standard or in terms of their position with respect to each other. In this study, each respondent was presented 14 cards on which * This article is a slightly expanded version of a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, April, 1965. Several colleagues have made valuable suggestions and constructive criticism to an earlier draft of this paper. We wish particularly to thank Gerald R. Leslie, Solomon Sutker, James D. Tarver, and J. Paschal Twyman. 1 For summaries, see Herbert Hyman, The Value Systems of Different Classes: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification, in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Status, and Power: A Reader ir Social Stratification (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1953), pp. 426-442; Joseph A. Kahl, American Class Structure (New York: Rinehart & Co., 1953), pp. 184-220; Frank Auld, Influence of Social Class on Personality Test Responses, Psychological Bulletin, 49 (July 1952), pp. 318-332; Leonard Reissman, Levels of Aspiration and Social Class, American Sociological Review, 18 (June 1953), pp. 233-242; Bernard C. Rosen, Achievement Syndrome: A Psychocultural Dimension of Social Stratification, American Sociological Review, 21 (April 1956), pp. 203211. 2The data came from field work conducted by Richard F. Larson in South Bend, Indiana, with some financial assistance from project W-108, Michigan State University, Charles P. Loomis, Director. See Richard F. Larson, An Analysis of Selected Health Knowledge, Values, and Practices as Related to Social unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1961. 3 Desiderata is a term which best describes our items. These are: being in good health, belonging to a church, having a steady job, having a good education, being clean, being respected by people, having children, having friends, owning a home, having insurance, having savings, living in a good neighborhood, getting ahead, and owning an automobile. occupations are: physician, priest or minister, public school teacher, dentist, nurse in a hospital, pharmacist, lawyer, policeman, banker, businessman, plumber, automobile mechanic, clerk in a store, and waiter or waitress.