Sociologists have an awkward relationship with functionalist explanations. Despite having declared “functionalism” to be obsolete, some form of functionalist argument still remains cryptically present in much substantive research. We argue that the resulting inability to talk plainly about functions is a major hindrance for theory building in the discipline. As such, this article has two goals. The first is disambiguation. What does it mean to attribute a function to something? We answer this question by elaborating on the distinction between proper functions (responding to why-is-it-there questions) and role functions (responding to how-does-it-work questions). The second is to introduce a typology of functional arguments that builds upon this distinction, allowing us to recast “functionalism” as a set of general explanatory strategies and not as a substantive theory about society. Importantly, these forms of argument are not burdened by the problems with the organicist framework that many sociologists associate with functionalism.
{"title":"How to Make a Functionalist Argument","authors":"Andrés Castro Araújo, Nicolás Restrepo Ochoa","doi":"10.15195/v12.a20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a20","url":null,"abstract":"Sociologists have an awkward relationship with functionalist explanations. Despite having declared “functionalism” to be obsolete, some form of functionalist argument still remains cryptically present in much substantive research. We argue that the resulting inability to talk plainly about functions is a major hindrance for theory building in the discipline. As such, this article has two goals. The first is disambiguation. What does it mean to attribute a function to something? We answer this question by elaborating on the distinction between proper functions (responding to why-is-it-there questions) and role functions (responding to how-does-it-work questions). The second is to introduce a typology of functional arguments that builds upon this distinction, allowing us to recast “functionalism” as a set of general explanatory strategies and not as a substantive theory about society. Importantly, these forms of argument are not burdened by the problems with the organicist framework that many sociologists associate with functionalism.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144840039","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}
Politically heterogeneous social networks have long been considered as a safeguard against political division. However, in today’s polarized political climate, the effectiveness of cross-partisan interactions in mitigating animosity is increasingly questioned. Prior research emphasizes the importance of hearing-the-other-side through cross-partisan discussions with close ties. We confirm that these discussions still take place and are related to lower inter-partisan animosity. Moreover, we propose a complementary mechanism, seeing-the-other-side, according to which even brief interactions with out-partisan acquaintances serve to reduce distorted views of out-partisans, thereby lowering inter-partisan hostility. Using original data from the United States, we find that both close tie and acquaintance networks display significant political heterogeneity and this heterogeneity is associated with lower partisan animosity. Experimentally, we show that reducing misperceptions by increasing the salience of similarities between in-partisan and out-partisan acquaintances further reduces hostility. These findings highlight the continued relevance of everyday political diversity in tempering partisan divisions and nuance worries about partisan echo chambers.
{"title":"Partisanship Meets Social Networks: How Politically Heterogeneous Acquaintances and Close Relationships Buffer Partisan Animosity","authors":"Delia Baldassarri, Jona de Jong","doi":"10.15195/v12.a18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a18","url":null,"abstract":"Politically heterogeneous social networks have long been considered as a safeguard against political division. However, in today’s polarized political climate, the effectiveness of cross-partisan interactions in mitigating animosity is increasingly questioned. Prior research emphasizes the importance of hearing-the-other-side through cross-partisan discussions with close ties. We confirm that these discussions still take place and are related to lower inter-partisan animosity. Moreover, we propose a complementary mechanism, seeing-the-other-side, according to which even brief interactions with out-partisan acquaintances serve to reduce distorted views of out-partisans, thereby lowering inter-partisan hostility. Using original data from the United States, we find that both close tie and acquaintance networks display significant political heterogeneity and this heterogeneity is associated with lower partisan animosity. Experimentally, we show that reducing misperceptions by increasing the salience of similarities between in-partisan and out-partisan acquaintances further reduces hostility. These findings highlight the continued relevance of everyday political diversity in tempering partisan divisions and nuance worries about partisan echo chambers.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144578833","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}
Voters often show low levels of accurate policy information owing to misinformation and directional motivated reasoning. Extant research shows that participants in randomly selected deliberative groups—commonly called
{"title":"Who Learns from Deliberative Minipublics? Identity-Based Differences in Knowledge Gains across Thirteen Citizens' Initiative Review Experiments","authors":"Kristinn Már Ársælsson, John Gastil","doi":"10.15195/v12.a17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a17","url":null,"abstract":"Voters often show low levels of accurate policy information owing to misinformation and directional motivated reasoning. Extant research shows that participants in randomly selected deliberative groups—commonly called","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"154 1","pages":"388-408"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144534100","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}
As institutions increasingly use predictive algorithms to allocate scarce resources, scholars have warned that these algorithms may legitimize inequality. Although research has examined how elite discourses position algorithms as fair, we know less about how the public perceives them compared to traditional allocation methods. We implement a vignette-based survey experiment to measure perceptions of algorithmic allocation relative to common alternatives: administrative rules, lotteries, petitions from potential beneficiaries, and professional judgment. Focusing on the case of schools allocating scarce tutoring resources, our nationally representative survey of U.S. parents finds that parents view algorithms as fairer than traditional alternatives, especially lotteries. However, significant divides emerge along socioeconomic and political lines—lower socioeconomic status (SES) and conservative parents favor the personal knowledge held by counselors and parents, whereas higher SES and liberal parents prefer the impersonal logic of algorithms. We also find that, after reading about algorithmic bias, parental opposition to algorithms is strongest among those who are most directly disadvantaged. Overall, our findings map cleavages in attitudes that may influence the adoption and political sustainability of algorithmic allocation methods.
{"title":"Predictive Algorithms and Perceptions of Fairness: Parent Attitudes Toward Algorithmic Resource Allocation in K-12 Education","authors":"Rebecca A. Johnson, Simone Zhang","doi":"10.15195/v12.a15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a15","url":null,"abstract":"As institutions increasingly use predictive algorithms to allocate scarce resources, scholars have warned that these algorithms may legitimize inequality. Although research has examined how elite discourses position algorithms as fair, we know less about how the public perceives them compared to traditional allocation methods. We implement a vignette-based survey experiment to measure perceptions of algorithmic allocation relative to common alternatives: administrative rules, lotteries, petitions from potential beneficiaries, and professional judgment. Focusing on the case of schools allocating scarce tutoring resources, our nationally representative survey of U.S. parents finds that parents view algorithms as fairer than traditional alternatives, especially lotteries. However, significant divides emerge along socioeconomic and political lines—lower socioeconomic status (SES) and conservative parents favor the personal knowledge held by counselors and parents, whereas higher SES and liberal parents prefer the impersonal logic of algorithms. We also find that, after reading about algorithmic bias, parental opposition to algorithms is strongest among those who are most directly disadvantaged. Overall, our findings map cleavages in attitudes that may influence the adoption and political sustainability of algorithmic allocation methods. ","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"10 1","pages":"322-356"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144067098","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}
Cristobal Young, Benjamin Cornwell, Barum Park, Nan Feng
What is the relationship between inequality and social ties? Do personal networks, group memberships, and connections to social resources help level the playing field, or do they reinforce economic disparities? We examine two core empirical issues: the degree of inequality in social ties and their consolidation with income. Using 142,000 person-wave observations from 15 high-quality U.S. data sets, we measure the quantity and quality of social ties and examine their distribution. Our findings show that (1) the Gini coefficient for social ties often exceeds that of income and (2) social ties are concentrated among those with the highest incomes. We introduce an overall inequality–consolidation curve, demonstrating that social ties generally reinforce economic inequality. However, we identify one key exception: there is no class gradient in the use of social ties for job search. These findings contribute to debates about the role of social ties in perpetuating or mitigating inequality.
{"title":"Inequality and Social Ties: Evidence from 15 U.S. Data Sets","authors":"Cristobal Young, Benjamin Cornwell, Barum Park, Nan Feng","doi":"10.15195/v12.a14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a14","url":null,"abstract":"What is the relationship between inequality and social ties? Do personal networks, group memberships, and connections to social resources help level the playing field, or do they reinforce economic disparities? We examine two core empirical issues: the degree of inequality in social ties and their consolidation with income. Using 142,000 person-wave observations from 15 high-quality U.S. data sets, we measure the quantity and quality of social ties and examine their distribution. Our findings show that (1) the Gini coefficient for social ties often exceeds that of income and (2) social ties are concentrated among those with the highest incomes. We introduce an overall inequality–consolidation curve, demonstrating that social ties generally reinforce economic inequality. However, we identify one key exception: there is no class gradient in the use of social ties for job search. These findings contribute to debates about the role of social ties in perpetuating or mitigating inequality. ","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"123 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143940195","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}
Christina Pao, Christopher A. Julian, D’Lane Compton, Danya Lagos, Lawrence Stacey
Strategies for including noncisgender responses in demographic analyses remain subjects of ongoing debate and refinement. The Household Pulse Survey is one of the first data products by the U.S. Census Bureau to incorporate a two-step gender identity measure. This is significant because the survey, although experimental, is one of the largest federal nationally representative samples (n = 668,273) that allows for the enumeration of noncisgender people. These data enable researchers to examine how respondents' selection of different response categories may differ across their demographic characteristics. Many studies using a two-step gender measure either exclude noncisgender respondents or aggregate them into a single analytic group, obscuring within-group heterogeneity. We find significant socioeconomic differences between cisgender and noncisgender responses, with cisgender individuals generally faring better. There is additional heterogeneity within noncisgender groups; for example, individuals who mark 'transgender' are more likely to identify as non-heterosexual and never married, and those outside defined gender categories often report 'don't know' or 'something else' about their sexual identity. Although differences persist between cisgender and noncisgender populations, this work emphasizes the need to also perform within-group analyses (e.g., with a two-step measure) to capture the unique and shared experiences of noncisgender populations.
{"title":"Demographic Differences in Responses to a Two-Step Gender Identity Measure","authors":"Christina Pao, Christopher A. Julian, D’Lane Compton, Danya Lagos, Lawrence Stacey","doi":"10.15195/v12.a13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a13","url":null,"abstract":"Strategies for including noncisgender responses in demographic analyses remain subjects of ongoing debate and refinement. The Household Pulse Survey is one of the first data products by the U.S. Census Bureau to incorporate a two-step gender identity measure. This is significant because the survey, although experimental, is one of the largest federal nationally representative samples (n = 668,273) that allows for the enumeration of noncisgender people. These data enable researchers to examine how respondents' selection of different response categories may differ across their demographic characteristics. Many studies using a two-step gender measure either exclude noncisgender respondents or aggregate them into a single analytic group, obscuring within-group heterogeneity. We find significant socioeconomic differences between cisgender and noncisgender responses, with cisgender individuals generally faring better. There is additional heterogeneity within noncisgender groups; for example, individuals who mark 'transgender' are more likely to identify as non-heterosexual and never married, and those outside defined gender categories often report 'don't know' or 'something else' about their sexual identity. Although differences persist between cisgender and noncisgender populations, this work emphasizes the need to also perform within-group analyses (e.g., with a two-step measure) to capture the unique and shared experiences of noncisgender populations.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143915952","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}
Social science surveys regularly ask respondents to generate opinions or positions on issues deemed to be of political and social importance, such as confidence in government officials or federal spending priorities. Many theories assume that interpersonal deliberation is a primary mechanism through which people develop positions on such issues, but it is unclear how often the issues captured by such questions become a topic of conversation. Using an original survey of 2,117 American adults, we quantify how often people report discussing the issues tapped by 88 questions in the General Social Survey’s core questionnaire, as well as how often respondents say they individually reflect on these issues, how important they believe them to be, and how sensitive they believe it would be to discuss those issues. We find that the majority of respondents report discussing the majority of issues fewer than once or twice a year, with the modal response that respondents have never discussed an issue in the past year. At the same time, some topics—such as religious beliefs and generic appraisals of political leaders—come up quite frequently, and a small number of respondents report frequently discussing most items. We consider the implications of these findings for theories of belief formation.
{"title":"What Are You Talking about? Discussion Frequency of Issues Captured in Common Survey Questions","authors":"Turgut Keskintürk, Kevin Kiley, Stephen Vaisey","doi":"10.15195/v12.a12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a12","url":null,"abstract":"Social science surveys regularly ask respondents to generate opinions or positions on issues deemed to be of political and social importance, such as confidence in government officials or federal spending priorities. Many theories assume that interpersonal deliberation is a primary mechanism through which people develop positions on such issues, but it is unclear how often the issues captured by such questions become a topic of conversation. Using an original survey of 2,117 American adults, we quantify how often people report discussing the issues tapped by 88 questions in the General Social Survey’s core questionnaire, as well as how often respondents say they individually reflect on these issues, how important they believe them to be, and how sensitive they believe it would be to discuss those issues. We find that the majority of respondents report discussing the majority of issues fewer than once or twice a year, with the modal response that respondents have never discussed an issue in the past year. At the same time, some topics—such as religious beliefs and generic appraisals of political leaders—come up quite frequently, and a small number of respondents report frequently discussing most items. We consider the implications of these findings for theories of belief formation.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143903133","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}
Research in previous decades found that employers imposed penalties on job applicants with a past history of frequent moves across employers, and yet mobility across employers is more common in today’s economy and perhaps even a valuable career strategy. While popular discourse and some academic literature has portrayed highly mobile careers as widespread and broadly accepted, other studies have suggested that such careers may only thrive in specific pockets of the labor market, particularly high-technology jobs. We conducted a field experiment in the United States to assess employer responses to resumes with three levels of past mobility. We found significant variation in employer mobility preferences, with jobs in human resources, financial reporting, marketing, and IT penalizing high-mobility applicants. In contrast, very stable work histories were penalized when hiring software testers. Counter to expectations, high-technology employers did not broadly embrace mobility. These findings suggest that employers follow occupation-specific mobility expectations, and as a consequence must balance competing mobility orientations within their workforce. Workers, meanwhile, must face the challenges of navigating a precarious labor market while also being mindful of the impact that their cumulative mobility may have on future job opportunities.
{"title":"Do Employers Care about Past Mobility? A Field Experiment Examining Hiring Preferences in Technology and Non-Technology Jobs","authors":"Matissa Hollister, Nicole Denier, Xavier St-Denis","doi":"10.15195/v12.a11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a11","url":null,"abstract":"Research in previous decades found that employers imposed penalties on job applicants with a past history of frequent moves across employers, and yet mobility across employers is more common in today’s economy and perhaps even a valuable career strategy. While popular discourse and some academic literature has portrayed highly mobile careers as widespread and broadly accepted, other studies have suggested that such careers may only thrive in specific pockets of the labor market, particularly high-technology jobs. We conducted a field experiment in the United States to assess employer responses to resumes with three levels of past mobility. We found significant variation in employer mobility preferences, with jobs in human resources, financial reporting, marketing, and IT penalizing high-mobility applicants. In contrast, very stable work histories were penalized when hiring software testers. Counter to expectations, high-technology employers did not broadly embrace mobility. These findings suggest that employers follow occupation-specific mobility expectations, and as a consequence must balance competing mobility orientations within their workforce. Workers, meanwhile, must face the challenges of navigating a precarious labor market while also being mindful of the impact that their cumulative mobility may have on future job opportunities.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143884344","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 his seminal work 'Ordaining Women,' Mark Chaves (1997b) highlighted the phenomenon of 'loose coupling' regarding female religious leadership: congregations often display inconsistencies between their stated policies and actual practices. Some congregations declare openness to female leadership but do not practice it, whereas others officially forbid female leadership yet have women in leadership roles. Our article identifies a theoretical mechanism producing this inconsistency. We propose that congregations typically first loosen their formal rules governing female access to leadership and only later allow women to occupy leadership positions in practice. This two-stage process results in a temporal lag between rule change and practice change, creating the observed 'loose coupling,' where rules are often more gender egalitarian than practice. Using two waves of the National Congregation Survey Switzerland covering all religious traditions, we test our theory both on the aggregate and the unit level and find strong support for it. Simulations further indicate that certain characteristics of the organizational population of congregations, such as their low attrition rate, may explain a large part of the lag between rule change and practice change.
{"title":"The Sequential Rise of Female Religious Leadership","authors":"Jeremy Senn, Jörg Stolz","doi":"10.15195/v12.a9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a9","url":null,"abstract":"In his seminal work 'Ordaining Women,' Mark Chaves (1997b) highlighted the phenomenon of 'loose coupling' regarding female religious leadership: congregations often display inconsistencies between their stated policies and actual practices. Some congregations declare openness to female leadership but do not practice it, whereas others officially forbid female leadership yet have women in leadership roles. Our article identifies a theoretical mechanism producing this inconsistency. We propose that congregations typically first loosen their formal rules governing female access to leadership and only later allow women to occupy leadership positions in practice. This two-stage process results in a temporal lag between rule change and practice change, creating the observed 'loose coupling,' where rules are often more gender egalitarian than practice. Using two waves of the National Congregation Survey Switzerland covering all religious traditions, we test our theory both on the aggregate and the unit level and find strong support for it. Simulations further indicate that certain characteristics of the organizational population of congregations, such as their low attrition rate, may explain a large part of the lag between rule change and practice change.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143666164","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}
Women tend to commute shorter distances and earn lower wages. The theory suggests that more mobile workers are likely to command higher wages, in part because they have access to more job opportunities. We show how information on employment concentration and commuting patterns can be linked to build an index of labor market opportunities, using linked administrative and household survey data from the UK. Although labor markets are porous, commonly used measures of employment concentration require well-defined geographical boundaries. We overcome this problem by combining employment concentration indices calculated using areas of different sizes and using the individual commuting costs as weights. We show that women have higher commuting costs and, as a result, their labor markets are smaller and their job opportunities are more limited.
{"title":"Commuting and Gender Differences in Job Opportunities","authors":"Silvia Avram","doi":"10.15195/v12.a8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a8","url":null,"abstract":"Women tend to commute shorter distances and earn lower wages. The theory suggests that more mobile workers are likely to command higher wages, in part because they have access to more job opportunities. We show how information on employment concentration and commuting patterns can be linked to build an index of labor market opportunities, using linked administrative and household survey data from the UK. Although labor markets are porous, commonly used measures of employment concentration require well-defined geographical boundaries. We overcome this problem by combining employment concentration indices calculated using areas of different sizes and using the individual commuting costs as weights. We show that women have higher commuting costs and, as a result, their labor markets are smaller and their job opportunities are more limited.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143627468","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：