Mana Nakagawa, Christine Min Wotipka, Elizabeth Buckner
Drawing on a unique data set of almost 12,000 faculty members from 52 globally ranked universities in four fields (sociology, biology, history, and engineering), this study describes and explains gender differences in tenure among faculty across 13 countries. In our sample, women comprise roughly one-third of all faculty and only 23 percent of tenured faculty, with significant variation across fields and countries. Findings from a series of multilevel regression analyses suggest support for a gender filter argument: women are less likely to be tenured overall and in every field. Opportunities for tenure also matter. In countries with very low- and high-tenure rates, women are much less likely to be tenured relative to men than in countries with pathways both into and upward in academia.
{"title":"Opportunities for Faculty Tenure at Globally Ranked Universities: Cross-National Differences by Gender, Fields, and Tenure Status","authors":"Mana Nakagawa, Christine Min Wotipka, Elizabeth Buckner","doi":"10.15195/v11.a39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v11.a39","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on a unique data set of almost 12,000 faculty members from 52 globally ranked universities in four fields (sociology, biology, history, and engineering), this study describes and explains gender differences in tenure among faculty across 13 countries. In our sample, women comprise roughly one-third of all faculty and only 23 percent of tenured faculty, with significant variation across fields and countries. Findings from a series of multilevel regression analyses suggest support for a gender filter argument: women are less likely to be tenured overall and in every field. Opportunities for tenure also matter. In countries with very low- and high-tenure rates, women are much less likely to be tenured relative to men than in countries with pathways both into and upward in academia.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142718438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
David R. Schaefer, Sara I. Villalta, Victoria Vezaldenos, Adriana J. Umaña-Taylor
Research on race homophily in the United States has yet to meaningfully include the growing multiracial population. The present study confronts this challenge by drawing upon recent conceptualizations of race as a multidimensional construct. In aligning this insight with current understandings of homophily, we identify and address several open questions about the origins of race homophily—namely regarding the possibility of peer influence on racial identity and network selection based on multiple facets of race. Data are from 3,036 youth in two large U.S. high schools with sizable proportions of mixed-race students. Using a stochastic actor-oriented model, we find that students choose friends based on similarity across multiple dimensions of racial identity and that peer influence operates to reinforce multiracial youths' racial self-classification rather than to induce change. This points to a system where race homophily arises through multiple selection mechanisms and is reinforced by pressure toward conformity.
{"title":"Some Birds Have Mixed Feathers: Bringing the Multiracial Population into the Study of Race Homophily","authors":"David R. Schaefer, Sara I. Villalta, Victoria Vezaldenos, Adriana J. Umaña-Taylor","doi":"10.15195/v11.a38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v11.a38","url":null,"abstract":"Research on race homophily in the United States has yet to meaningfully include the growing multiracial population. The present study confronts this challenge by drawing upon recent conceptualizations of race as a multidimensional construct. In aligning this insight with current understandings of homophily, we identify and address several open questions about the origins of race homophily—namely regarding the possibility of peer influence on racial identity and network selection based on multiple facets of race. Data are from 3,036 youth in two large U.S. high schools with sizable proportions of mixed-race students. Using a stochastic actor-oriented model, we find that students choose friends based on similarity across multiple dimensions of racial identity and that peer influence operates to reinforce multiracial youths' racial self-classification rather than to induce change. This points to a system where race homophily arises through multiple selection mechanisms and is reinforced by pressure toward conformity.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142601947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marissa E. Thompson, Tobias Dalberg, Elizabeth E. Bruch
Gender segregation across fields of study is a persistent problem in higher education. Although a large body of literature has illustrated both gendered patterns in major choice as well as overall gender segregation across academic majors, comparatively less attention has been paid to an important building block for gender inequality: college courses. In this study, we examine the process of how students choose courses and the implications for gender segregation. Drawing on a unique data set that includes individual-level consideration and choice data from an entire cohort of university students choosing their first college courses, we examine both gender segregation at the college course level as well as the extent to which individual decision-making processes are themselves gendered. We find that course gender composition serves as a screener at the consideration stage, which suggests that gender segregation in decision-making emerges at the outset of the choice process. Once a subset of considered options has been established, final choices are much less influenced by course gender compositions. Furthermore, we find that courses are much more gender-segregated, on average, than majors themselves, illustrating that segregation is occurring at a more microlevel than commonly studied.
{"title":"Gender Segregation and Decision-Making in Undergraduate Course-Taking","authors":"Marissa E. Thompson, Tobias Dalberg, Elizabeth E. Bruch","doi":"10.15195/v11.a37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v11.a37","url":null,"abstract":"Gender segregation across fields of study is a persistent problem in higher education. Although a large body of literature has illustrated both gendered patterns in major choice as well as overall gender segregation across academic majors, comparatively less attention has been paid to an important building block for gender inequality: college courses. In this study, we examine the process of how students choose courses and the implications for gender segregation. Drawing on a unique data set that includes individual-level consideration and choice data from an entire cohort of university students choosing their first college courses, we examine both gender segregation at the college course level as well as the extent to which individual decision-making processes are themselves gendered. We find that course gender composition serves as a screener at the consideration stage, which suggests that gender segregation in decision-making emerges at the outset of the choice process. Once a subset of considered options has been established, final choices are much less influenced by course gender compositions. Furthermore, we find that courses are much more gender-segregated, on average, than majors themselves, illustrating that segregation is occurring at a more microlevel than commonly studied. ","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142596601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The morality of artificial intelligence (AI) has become a contentious topic in academic and public debates. We argue that AIs moral acceptance depends not only on its ability to accomplish a task in line with moral norms but also on the social status attributed to AI. Agent type (AI vs. computer program vs. human), gender, and organizational membership impact moral permissibility. In a factorial survey experiment, 578 participants rated the moral acceptability of agents performing a task (e.g., cancer diagnostics). We find that using AI is judged less morally acceptable than employing human agents. AI used in high-status organizations is judged more morally acceptable than in low-status organizations. No differences were found between computer programs and AI. Neither anthropomorphic nor gender framing had an effect. Thus, human agents in high-status organizations receive a moral surplus purely based on their structural position in a cultural status hierarchy regardless of their actual performance.
人工智能（AI）的道德问题已成为学术界和公众争论的一个有争议的话题。我们认为，人工智能在道德上是否被接受，不仅取决于其完成符合道德规范的任务的能力，还取决于赋予人工智能的社会地位。人工智能的类型（人工智能 vs. 计算机程序 vs. 人类）、性别和组织成员身份都会影响道德许可度。在一项因子调查实验中，578 名参与者对执行任务（如癌症诊断）的代理的道德可接受性进行了评分。我们发现，与使用人类代理相比，使用人工智能在道德上的可接受性较低。在地位较高的组织中使用人工智能比在地位较低的组织中使用人工智能在道德上更容易被接受。计算机程序和人工智能之间没有差异。拟人化和性别框架都没有影响。因此，高地位组织中的人类代理获得道德盈余完全是基于他们在文化地位等级中的结构性地位，而与他们的实际表现无关。
{"title":"Social Status and the Moral Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Patrick Schenk, Vanessa A. Müller, Luca Keiser","doi":"10.15195/v11.a36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v11.a36","url":null,"abstract":"The morality of artificial intelligence (AI) has become a contentious topic in academic and public debates. We argue that AIs moral acceptance depends not only on its ability to accomplish a task in line with moral norms but also on the social status attributed to AI. Agent type (AI vs. computer program vs. human), gender, and organizational membership impact moral permissibility. In a factorial survey experiment, 578 participants rated the moral acceptability of agents performing a task (e.g., cancer diagnostics). We find that using AI is judged less morally acceptable than employing human agents. AI used in high-status organizations is judged more morally acceptable than in low-status organizations. No differences were found between computer programs and AI. Neither anthropomorphic nor gender framing had an effect. Thus, human agents in high-status organizations receive a moral surplus purely based on their structural position in a cultural status hierarchy regardless of their actual performance.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142541504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-01Epub Date: 2024-03-25DOI: 10.15195/v11.a10
Kristen Harknett, Charlotte O'Herron, Evelyn Bellew
The labor market is the site of longstanding and persistent inequalities across race and gender groups in hiring, compensation, and advancement. In this paper, we draw on data from 13,574 hourly service-sector workers to extend the study of intersectional labor market inequalities to workers' experience on the job. In the service sector, where workers are regularly expected to be on their feet for long hours and to contend with workloads that are intense and unrelenting, regular break time is an essential component of job quality and general well-being. Yet, we find that Black women are less likely than their counterparts to get a break during their work shift. Although union membership and laws mandating work breaks are effective in increasing access to breaks for workers overall, they do not ameliorate the inequality Black women face in access to work breaks within the service sector. A sobering implication is that worker power and labor protections can raise the floor on working conditions but leave inequalities intact. Our findings also have implications for racial health inequalities, as the routine daily stress of service sector takes a disproportionate toll on the health of Black women.
{"title":"Can't Catch a Break: Intersectional Inequalities at Work.","authors":"Kristen Harknett, Charlotte O'Herron, Evelyn Bellew","doi":"10.15195/v11.a10","DOIUrl":"10.15195/v11.a10","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The labor market is the site of longstanding and persistent inequalities across race and gender groups in hiring, compensation, and advancement. In this paper, we draw on data from 13,574 hourly service-sector workers to extend the study of intersectional labor market inequalities to workers' experience on the job. In the service sector, where workers are regularly expected to be on their feet for long hours and to contend with workloads that are intense and unrelenting, regular break time is an essential component of job quality and general well-being. Yet, we find that Black women are less likely than their counterparts to get a break during their work shift. Although union membership and laws mandating work breaks are effective in increasing access to breaks for workers overall, they do not ameliorate the inequality Black women face in access to work breaks within the service sector. A sobering implication is that worker power and labor protections can raise the floor on working conditions but leave inequalities intact. Our findings also have implications for racial health inequalities, as the routine daily stress of service sector takes a disproportionate toll on the health of Black women.</p>","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"11 ","pages":"233-257"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11062619/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140851315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Using population register data from the Netherlands, we analyze the child penalty for new parents in three groups of couples: different-sex and female same-sex couples with a biological child and different-sex couples with an adopted child. With a longitudinal design, we follow parents' earnings from two years before to eight years after the arrival of the child and use event study models to estimate the effects of the transition to parenthood on earnings trajectories. Comparing different groups of couples allows us to test hypotheses related to three types of within-couple differences that are difficult to disentangle when studying only heterosexual biological parents: relative earnings, childbearing, and gender. Our results offer strong support for gender as the main driver of divergent child penalties. The gender of their partners is more consequential for mothers' earnings trajectories than is childbearing or the pre-parenthood relative earnings in the couple.
{"title":"Money, Birth, Gender: Explaining Unequal Earnings Trajectories following Parenthood","authors":"Weverthon Machado, Eva Jaspers","doi":"10.15195/v10.a14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a14","url":null,"abstract":"Using population register data from the Netherlands, we analyze the child penalty for new parents in three groups of couples: different-sex and female same-sex couples with a biological child and different-sex couples with an adopted child. With a longitudinal design, we follow parents' earnings from two years before to eight years after the arrival of the child and use event study models to estimate the effects of the transition to parenthood on earnings trajectories. Comparing different groups of couples allows us to test hypotheses related to three types of within-couple differences that are difficult to disentangle when studying only heterosexual biological parents: relative earnings, childbearing, and gender. Our results offer strong support for gender as the main driver of divergent child penalties. The gender of their partners is more consequential for mothers' earnings trajectories than is childbearing or the pre-parenthood relative earnings in the couple.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In many settings, witnesses can report wrongdoing to internal authorities such as officials within an organization or to external authorities such as the police. We theorize this decision of where to report as rooted in the policing of group boundaries, as the use of different reporting channels symbolically affirms or disaffirms affiliation with different social categories. As such, both witnesses and other social actors have an interest in where witnesses report. We evaluate this theory using villagers' reporting of illegal Taliban activity in Afghanistan in 2017 and 2018, where witnesses could report externally (e.g., to the national police) or internally (e.g., to village elders). We show how responses to wrongdoing arose from the interaction between self and others' attitudes toward the Taliban, and we reveal how reporting can be simultaneously punitive for the wrongdoer and affiliative for the category to which the wrongdoer belongs.
{"title":"From Social Alignment to Social Control: Reporting the Taliban in Afghanistan","authors":"Patrick Bergemann, Austin L. Wright","doi":"10.15195/v10.a9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a9","url":null,"abstract":"In many settings, witnesses can report wrongdoing to internal authorities such as officials within an organization or to external authorities such as the police. We theorize this decision of where to report as rooted in the policing of group boundaries, as the use of different reporting channels symbolically affirms or disaffirms affiliation with different social categories. As such, both witnesses and other social actors have an interest in where witnesses report. We evaluate this theory using villagers' reporting of illegal Taliban activity in Afghanistan in 2017 and 2018, where witnesses could report externally (e.g., to the national police) or internally (e.g., to village elders). We show how responses to wrongdoing arose from the interaction between self and others' attitudes toward the Taliban, and we reveal how reporting can be simultaneously punitive for the wrongdoer and affiliative for the category to which the wrongdoer belongs.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"52 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is widely believed that (1) children lose months of reading and math skills over summer vacation and that (2) inequality in skills grows much faster during summer than during school. Concerns have been raised about the replicability of evidence for these claims, but an impression may exist that nonreplicable findings are limited to older studies. After reviewing the 100-year history of nonreplicable results on summer learning, we compared three recent data sources (ECLS- K:2011, NWEA, and Renaissance) that tracked U.S. elementary students' skills through school years and summers in the 2010s. Most patterns did not generalize beyond a single test. Summer losses looked substantial on some tests but not on others. Score gaps—between schools and students of different income levels, ethnicities, and genders—grew on some tests but not on others. The total variance of scores grew on some tests but not on others. On tests where gaps and variance grew, they did not consistently grow faster during summer than during school. Future research should demonstrate that a summer learning pattern replicates before drawing broad conclusions about learning or inequality.
{"title":"Findings on Summer Learning Loss Often Fail to Replicate, Even in Recent Data","authors":"Joseph Workman, Paul T. von Hippel, Joseph Merry","doi":"10.15195/v10.a8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a8","url":null,"abstract":"It is widely believed that (1) children lose months of reading and math skills over summer vacation and that (2) inequality in skills grows much faster during summer than during school. Concerns have been raised about the replicability of evidence for these claims, but an impression may exist that nonreplicable findings are limited to older studies. After reviewing the 100-year history of nonreplicable results on summer learning, we compared three recent data sources (ECLS- K:2011, NWEA, and Renaissance) that tracked U.S. elementary students' skills through school years and summers in the 2010s. Most patterns did not generalize beyond a single test. Summer losses looked substantial on some tests but not on others. Score gaps—between schools and students of different income levels, ethnicities, and genders—grew on some tests but not on others. The total variance of scores grew on some tests but not on others. On tests where gaps and variance grew, they did not consistently grow faster during summer than during school. Future research should demonstrate that a summer learning pattern replicates before drawing broad conclusions about learning or inequality.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"51 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Why do people engage with similar others despite ample opportunities to interact with dissimilar others? We argue that adversity or setbacks may have a stronger deteriorative effect on ties made up of dissimilar individuals, prompting people to give up on such ties more easily, which, over the long run, results in people forming ties with similar others. We examine this argument in the context of Association of Tennis Professionals tournaments, using data on 9,669 unique doubles pairs involving 1,812 unique players from 99 countries from 2000 to 2020. We find that doubles pairs with players from different countries are more likely to dissolve after a setback, especially if those countries lack social trust and connections with one another; this reality further contributes to the individual player's increased tendency to collaborate with same-country players in the next tournament. Our study has direct implications for interventions for diversity and inclusion.
{"title":"Homophily, Setbacks, and the Dissolution of Heterogeneous Ties: Evidence from Professional Tennis","authors":"Xuege (Cathy) Lu, Shinan Wang, Letian Zhang","doi":"10.15195/v10.a7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a7","url":null,"abstract":"Why do people engage with similar others despite ample opportunities to interact with dissimilar others? We argue that adversity or setbacks may have a stronger deteriorative effect on ties made up of dissimilar individuals, prompting people to give up on such ties more easily, which, over the long run, results in people forming ties with similar others. We examine this argument in the context of Association of Tennis Professionals tournaments, using data on 9,669 unique doubles pairs involving 1,812 unique players from 99 countries from 2000 to 2020. We find that doubles pairs with players from different countries are more likely to dissolve after a setback, especially if those countries lack social trust and connections with one another; this reality further contributes to the individual player's increased tendency to collaborate with same-country players in the next tournament. Our study has direct implications for interventions for diversity and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"44 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since Norman Ryder's (1965) classic essay on cohort analysis was published more than a half century ago, scores of researchers have attempted to uncover the separate effects of age, period, and cohort (APC) on a wide range of outcomes. However, rather than disentangling period effects from those attributable to age or cohort, Ryder's approach is based on distinguishing intra-cohort trends (or life-cycle change) from inter-cohort trends (or social change), which, together, constitute comparative cohort careers. Following Ryder's insights, in this article I show how to formally summarize population-level temporal variability on the Lexis table. In doing so, I present a number of parametric expressions representing intra- and inter-cohort trends, intra-period differences, and Ryderian comparative cohort careers. To aid the interpretation of results, I additionally introduce a suite of novel visualizations of these model-based summaries, including 2D and 3D Lexis heat maps. Crucially, the Ryderian approach developed in this article is fully identified, complementing (but not replacing) conventional approaches that rely on theoretical assumptions to parse out unique APC effects from unidentified models. This has the potential to provide a common base of knowledge in a literature often fraught with controversy. To illustrate, I analyze trends in social trust in the U.S. General Social Survey from 1972 to 2018.
{"title":"Dissecting the Lexis Table: Summarizing Population-Level Temporal Variability with Age–Period–Cohort Data","authors":"Ethan Fosse","doi":"10.15195/v10.a5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a5","url":null,"abstract":"Since Norman Ryder's (1965) classic essay on cohort analysis was published more than a half century ago, scores of researchers have attempted to uncover the separate effects of age, period, and cohort (APC) on a wide range of outcomes. However, rather than disentangling period effects from those attributable to age or cohort, Ryder's approach is based on distinguishing intra-cohort trends (or life-cycle change) from inter-cohort trends (or social change), which, together, constitute comparative cohort careers. Following Ryder's insights, in this article I show how to formally summarize population-level temporal variability on the Lexis table. In doing so, I present a number of parametric expressions representing intra- and inter-cohort trends, intra-period differences, and Ryderian comparative cohort careers. To aid the interpretation of results, I additionally introduce a suite of novel visualizations of these model-based summaries, including 2D and 3D Lexis heat maps. Crucially, the Ryderian approach developed in this article is fully identified, complementing (but not replacing) conventional approaches that rely on theoretical assumptions to parse out unique APC effects from unidentified models. This has the potential to provide a common base of knowledge in a literature often fraught with controversy. To illustrate, I analyze trends in social trust in the U.S. General Social Survey from 1972 to 2018.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：