American Sociological Association

Search

Search

The search found 125 results in 0.024 seconds.

Search results

  1. Visualizing Income Inequality and Mobility Together

    Research and public conversations about income inequality and intergenerational mobility will benefit from a new approach that jointly visualizes these two measures. The new mobility table proposed addresses this concern by scaling each quintile by the spread of income it represents. Implications of this approach for future analyses of inequality and mobility are discussed.
  2. When Do Biological Attributions of Mental Illness Reduce Stigma? Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to Contextualize Attributions

    Individuals increasingly have encountered messages that mental illness is explained by biological factors such as chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality. Many assumed this “biological turn” would lessen stigma toward mental illness, but stigma generally has remained stable or even increased.
  3. Text Analysis with JSTOR Archives

    I provide a visual representation of keyword trends and authorship for two flagship sociology journals using data from JSTOR’s Data for Research repository. While text data have accompanied the digital spread of information, it remains inaccessible to researchers unfamiliar with the required preprocessing. The visualization and accompanying code encourage widespread use of this source of data in the social sciences.

  4. It’s Only Wrong If It’s Transactional: Moral Perceptions of Obfuscated Exchange

    A wide class of economic exchanges, such as bribery and compensated adoption, are considered morally disreputable precisely because they are seen as economic exchanges. However, parties to these exchanges can structurally obfuscate them by arranging the transfers so as to obscure that a disreputable exchange is occurring at all.
  5. The Social Sources of Geopolitical Power: French and British Diplomacy and the Politics of Interstate Recognition, 1689 to 1789

    Why did France influence the geopolitical system of eighteenth-century Europe more effectively than did Britain? Explanations pointing to states’ military and economic power are unable to explain this outcome. I argue that durable geopolitical influence depends on states’ symbolic capacities to secure recognition from competitor states, in addition to their coercive and economic capacities. And I show that states are liable to secure recognition to the extent that their agents embody social dispositions congruent with those of competitor agents.
  6. Letter to the Editors

    Timothy M. Gill writes to add context to the Summer 2018 issue’s policy brief and urge an interrogation of assumptions that democracy assistance is a benign form of foreign policy.
  7. A Haunted Generation Remembers

    Second-generation Sikhs grew up with fragments and half-told stories of the anti-Sikh violence of 1984, but it is not just direct descendants of survivors who “remember” traumatic experiences. Sikhs’ collectivist orientation, cultural traditions and diasporic location offer new insights into understanding intergenerational trauma and memory work.
  8. Correction

    In the trends piece, “Taking a Knee” (Summer 2018), two figures had labeling errors. Please see with corrected figures here or visit contexts.org/articles/nfl for the full article with corrections.
  9. Correct Interpretations of Fixed-effects Models, Specification Decisions, and Self-reports of Intended Votes: A Response to Mutz

    The author thanks Professor Mutz for her informative reaction to his article. In this six-part response, the author first addresses Professor Mutz’s new claim that “Morgan’s interpretation suggests a misunderstanding of the panel models.” The author explains that this concern with his understanding can be set aside because Mutz’s interpretations of her own fixed-effects models are incorrect.

  10. Response to Morgan: On the Role of Status Threat and Material Interests in the 2016 Election

    I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to Morgan’s article, which is a critique of my recent publication (Mutz 2018). I will restrict my response to matters concerning the data and analysis, excluding issues such as whether the journal PNAS is appropriately named (Morgan this issue:3) as well as Morgan’s views about how this work was covered in various media outlets (Morgan this issue:3–6). These issues are less important than whether material self-interest or status threat motivated Trump supporters.