Chi square analysis of quantitative data from four studies indicates a complex relationship between socioeconomic rank and choice of close associates. Under some conditions, "equals" are chosen; under others, "superiors." Hypotheses are suggested regarding the nature of the relationship(s) involved. The logical and statistical problems encountered are noted. T HE increasing maturity of sociological theory is evidenced by propositions which combine variables from different areas of research. Riecken and Homans, for example, and Jennings have stated that socioeconomic status and sociometric choice are related, specifically that persons choosing others for close relationships tend to name those of higher socioeconomic status than themselves.' Stratification theory, on the other hand, holds that persons tend to associate with those of their own class level.2 This paper will use quantitative data from four studies to test the hypothesis that sociometric choices are directed toward persons of higher socioeconomic status. After very brief description of the studies and statement of some methodological issues involved, the data will be applied to the hypothesis. Alternative hypotheses will be implied in suggestions for further research. DATA FROM FOUR STUDIES Studies of a Vermont village by Lundberg and Lawsing and of a Michigan rural church by Schweitzer have been cited to support the proposition being tested. Similar data are available from Hollingshead's study of Elmtown's high school students and from a study of three Mississippi rural communities by the author. In the Vermont village, Lundberg and Lawsing studied the relationship between socioeconomic status and choice of friends, interviewing 94 percent of all housewives in the community.3 The socioeconomic status of each wife was described by scoring her living room on the Chapin scale. To obtain the sociometric variable, each person was asked to name in confidence "her most intimate friends in the community." If a definition of "friend" was requested, it was defined as a person "with whom 'social' visiting for other than business or professional reasons most frequently took place."4 Column 3 of Table 1 shows for each class interval of socioeconomic scores the percentage of * Read at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society, September 1959. 1 Henry W. Riecken and George C. Homans, "Psychological Aspects of Social Structure," in Gardner Lindzey (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychvology (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954), II, 789, and Helen H. Jennings, Leadership and Isolation (New York: Longmans, Green, 1950), p. 15. 2 Bernard Barber, Social Stratification (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1957), p. 67; John F. Cuber and William F. Kenkel, Social Stratification in the United States (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954), pp. 151-152; Joseph A. Kahl, The American Class Structure (New York: Rinehart, 1957), pp. 136-138; and Kurt B. Mayer, Class and Society (Garden City: Doubleday, 1955), pp. 43-45. 3George A. Lundberg and Margaret Lawsing, "The Sociography of Some Community Relations," American Sociological Review, II (June 1937), 318-335. Also reported in George A. Lundberg and Mary Steele, "Social Attraction-Patterns in a Village," Sociometry, I (January-April 1938), 375-419. 4Lundberg and Lawsing, op. cit., pp. 326-327.