Archive: Feb 2013

Some call it “tough love,” others claim they’re just “keepin’ it real.” Either way, by preparing their children to face racism, parents hope their kids will be able to handle such realities in non-violent ways.

In their attempt to understand the impact of interpersonal racial discrimination on criminal offending, Callie Burt, Ronald Simmons, and Frederick Gibbons offer new insights into how African American parents prepare their children for experiences with racial bias in order to foster a sense of resilience.  Based on panel data from several hundred male African American youth from the Family and Community Health Study, their findings show that higher instances of racial discrimination increase the likelihood of crime. But they also find that families use what they call “ethnic-racial socialization” (ERS) as a means of reducing this effect. According to the authors, ERS is “a class of adaptive and protective practices utilized by racial/ethnic minority families to promote functioning in a society stratified by race and ethnicity.” ERS is not necessarily a strategic effort, but an adaptive means of coping with racial inequality. In addition to reducing the impact of racial discrimination among the sample of black youth, ERS also weakened the effects of emotional distress, hostile views, and disengagement from norms on increased offending. Further, teaching kids about racism may prevent them from getting tangled up in criminal responses, but it’s also clear evidence that our society hasn’t transcended race or racism.

In an era of concerted cultivation and enlightened parenting, the need to steer children away from crime by revealing harsh inequalities at a young age seems futile. Ethnic-racial socialization strategies are not compatible with most middle-class cultural scripts. However, the irony in all of this is that most privileged parents are keeping it just as “real” as low-income parents of color. It is the stark contrast in how these parents practice concerted cultivation—whether in teaching piano scales or teaching kids to expect a racist world—that catches our attention.

Uptalk—a rise in intonation at the end of a statement—is most commonly associated with “Valley Girls”, but is actually fairly common in all American speech. And, as Thomas Linneman argues (Gender & Society February 2013), it may also be a key way that gender is both learned and communicated in our interactions.

Analyzing the speech patterns of 300 “Jeopardy!” contestants, Linneman finds that uptalk is used in the delivery of a full third of all responses. While women use uptalk more often, men also answer with a questioning tone, and are more likely to do so when engaging with a woman contestant. By definition, uptalk occurs during statements, not questions. Although “Jeopardy!” contestants must phrase their answer as a question, Linneman argues that responses are “questions” in name only—they’re treated as statements on the show.

Uptalk is most common with incorrect answers, lending support to the idea that it is a sign of uncertainty. But even accounting for accuracy, gender differences remain. For example, as women’s success on the show increases, so too does their use of uptalk—perhaps, Linneman argues, to account for this “breach” in gender performance. On the other hand, men decrease their use of uptalk when they’re doing well, unless they are correcting a female contestant. Men seem to realize that their gender expectations demand competitiveness and certainty.

Interested readers should also check out a guest post on this research on the TSP Community Page Sociological Images.

Lauren A. Rivera conducted interviews about the hiring process at elite professional firms and finds that hiring is about more than matching professional skills and qualifications. Rather, whether the candidate is a “cultural match” isn’t just an anecdotal idea—it truly matters. Similar hobbies and interests may really be the tipping point for hiring committee decisions.

Lin Wang, Glen H. Elder Jr., and Naomi J. Spence, “Status Configurations, Military Service and Higher Education,” Social Forces, 2012

In the era of a voluntary U.S. military, the Armed Forces offer educational and tuition benefits as incentives to recruit young people. The military, then, is often seen as an indirect bridge to higher education, especially for those who are disadvantaged in some way.

Lin Wang and his colleagues (Social Forces, December 2012) investigate the military and educational trajectories of young men with “inconsistencies” in their social status–that is, there’s not a match between their socioeconomic resources, cognitive ability, and academic performance. Using nationally representative longitudinal data, they find that these young men are more likely to enlist in the military. For example, those with high cognitive ability but poor performance in high school may enlist in search of opportunities to fulfill their potential, or those who perform well in school but are from low socioeconomic backgrounds may enlist for needed tuition benefits.

Status inconsistent people may have aspirations in line with their highest status, but their ability to attain their goals is often constrained by their lowest status. For these folks, the military may seem to be a viable strategy to pry open the doors of the ivory tower.

In reality, the data show that those who take the military route are actually less likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree, though they are more likely to complete a two-year degree or attend some college. As the military promises “all you can be,” this study suggests the road, for most, leads to an associate’s degree.