Rank and Percentile:
1690
| Name | Tax | Petition | Rank | Percent |
| Porter, Joseph | 50 | Anti-P | 1 | 100.00% |
| Hutchinson, Joseph sen | 40 | Anti-P | 2 | 96.90% |
| Putnam, Capt John | 40 | Pro-P | 2 | 96.90% |
| Putnam, Lett Nath | 40 | Pro-P | 2 | 96.90% |
| Andrew, Daniell | 36 | Anti-P | 5 | 95.90% |
| Pope, Joseph | 35 | Anti-P | 6 | 94.90% |
| Putnam, Joseph | 34 | Anti-P | 7 | 93.90% |
| Putnam, mary [mrs.] | 30 | NoS | 8 | 92.90% |
| Flint, Thomas | 29 | Pro-P | 9 | 91.90% |
| Buxton, John | 27 | Anti-P | 10 | 90.90% |
The relative economic position of each member of Salem Village's factions in 1690 can be determined by rank and percentile analysis, which provides a numerical and percentile order of all taxpayers.
Using the sorted 1690 tax list, choose "Data Analysis" in the Tools Menu and select "Rank and Percentile." Click the "Input Range" icon, and drag through the "Tax" column cells (including the column label). Select "Labels in First Row" button. Click the "Output Range" icon and select the top cell in the first empty column in the 1690 tax worksheet. Click the "Rank and Percentile" box again, and click "OK." The resulting table can be edited by deleting the "Point" and "Tax" columns. The "Rank" column presents the ordinal rank and the "Percent" column contains the percentage rank for each taxpayer.
It is evident that among the top 10% of Salem Village taxpayers in 1690, opposition to Samuel Parris predominated. Six of the ten members of this economic elite signed the anti-Parris petition in 1695. However, among the top quartile of taxpayers (25%), only nine of the twenty-four taxpayers signed the anti-Parris petition; thirteen signed the pro-Parris petition and two did not sign either petition. Thus, changing standards yields different perspectives: among the very wealthiest Salem Villagers in 1690, anti-Parris sentiment prevailed. But support for Parris was strong even among this group, and it increased significantly among Salem Village's well-to-do in the top quartile and top 20%.
Examining the rank and percentile standings of Salem Village's lowest taxpayers an be undertaken in the same way. The results show that whether the standard is the poorest 5% or 15% of taxpayers, the most conspicuous group was that of the non-signers; the pro- and anti-Parris signers were fewer and virtually even in number.
Rank and percentile analysis of the 1690 tax list appears to offer only limited support, at best, for the idea that class division fueled Salem Village's factionalism, though users may consider other possible conclusions.
Were the economic relationships found in 1690 static or in the process of change? Download the 1681 Tax Data Set and click Next.