The Chronicle of Higher Education reports this morning on an ongoing debate as to the validity of a 2006 study which concluded that Americans have become significantly more socially isolated over the last 25 years. 

David Glenn reports, “In the summer of 2006, several major news outletsgave prominent coverage to a sociological study with a grim message: Americans’ social isolation had increased radically since the 1980s. Whereas in 1985 Americans reported that, on average, they had 2.94 friends or family members with whom they could discuss important matters, by 2004 that number had dropped to 2.08. A quarter of Americans had no close confidants at all. Those findings were …[even] startling to the study’s authors, who are sociologists at Cornell University, Duke University, and the University of Arizona, [J. Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears].”

UC Berkeley sociologist and social networks scholar Claude Fisher has some concerns:

The [previous] study’s portrait of collapsing social networks, Mr. Fischer writes, is at odds with other recent findings by social scientists. What’s more, he says, some of the 2006 paper’s data seem internally inconsistent or simply implausible. For example, among people who reported belonging to four or more organizations—presumably a highly sociable bunch—14.9 percent reported having no confidants. And what about married people? Surely they discuss important matters with their spouses, if no one else. In 1985 only 6.6 percent of married respondents reported having no confidants, but in 2004, 22.2 percent did so.

Fisher claims that such errors could be due to errors during data collection or coding. Now the original study’s authors have responded…

The Times (UK) reports this morning on the potential health risks associated with energy drinks and the dangers they pose to young people. Pete Bee reports, “Energy drinks have become the elixir of a generation that considers itself in need of more of a jolt than can be obtained from a mere cup of coffee. Around 330 million litres of products such as Red Bull, the UK’s bestseller, are consumed every year in Britain and the super-caffeinated drinks market is worth £1billion annually.”

A sociologist contributes to these concerns over the consumption of highly-caffeinated energy drinks, some with more caffeine than seven cups of black coffee. 

… [Researchers] have suggested that the caffeine in energy drinks means that the regular use of such products should be considered an accurate predictor of bad behaviour in young people. Reporting in The Journal of American College Health, Kathleen Miller, a sociologist and addiction researcher at the University of Buffalo, showed a link between caffeinated drinks and risky or aggressive behaviour patterns, including substance abuse, violence and unprotected sex. She says that her findings did not mean that caffeinated drinks cause bad behaviour, but that their regular consumption might be a warning sign for parents that “kids who are heavily into drinking them are more likely to be the ones who are inclined toward taking risks”.

And be sure to lay off the Red Bull…

A growing number of researchers are looking not just at the effects of caffeine, but at the consequences of high doses contained in energy products. Scott Willoughby, of the Cardiovascular Research Centre in Adelaide, Australia, recently showed how the sugar-free version of Red Bull can cause the blood to thicken, raising the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

The full story.

This morning USA Today covered a new study by the Pew Research Center that surveyed 1,260 individuals about decision-making in the ‘typical American home.’ The study found that women had the final say in decisions at home in 43% of the couples.

USA Today called in a sociologist…

Sociologist and gender studies expert Michael Kimmel of Stony Brook University-New York says the responses suggest the path for couples is “far grayer” these days as couples weave in more equality.

“There’s far more fluidity in family decision-making around these topics than ever before, and that’s the real news,” he says. “Sometimes she makes the plans, sometimes he does. It’s who has the spare time.”

Kimmel offers three ways to interpret the findings: “One is ‘Only 43% of women make most of the decisions.’ Another way is ‘Couples are in their homes navigating and negotiating equality far more than ever before.’ A third way to read it is ‘In both very traditional couples and in very egalitarian couples, women’s sphere of influence has always been the family purse. She pays the bills, decides which dinner parties they go to. He goes along with family projects.’ “

Read the full story.

The Washington Post reports this morning on findings from sociologist Emilio J. Castilla, of MIT. Castilla’s study, published in the most recent issue of the American Journal of Sociology, examines merit-based pay plans that aim to distribute rewards without racial or gender bias. He concludes that they still favor white men.

The Post reports:

The biases [in pay] were introduced when a supervisor recommended raises or when the human resources department approved them, [Castilla] said. His research, published in the latest issue of the American Journal of Sociology, found that minorities and women had starting salaries similar to those of white men. Biases crept in over time, creating a pay gap. Even though merit-based systems create the appearance of meritocracy, he said, they need more transparency and accountability to live up to it.

Read more.

ScienceNews.com reports today on a recent sociological investigation into attitudes about global warming. Pollsters from Gallup asked groups of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents about whether they believe that ‘global warming poses a serious threat to the American way of life.’ The emerging results suggest that over the last 10 years, Democrats have increasingly said ‘yes’ (49% today as opposed to 31% ten years ago) while the share of Republicans saying ‘yes’ has grown more slowly (now 26% and previously 20%).

Science News reports: 

… While virtually half of Democrats currently view global warming as posing a serious threat within their lifetimes, only one-quarter of Republicans feel similarly, report Oklahoma State University sociologist Riley E. Dunlap (who’s also a Scholar for the Environment at the Gallup Organization) and sociologist Aaron M. McCright of Lyman Briggs Collegeand Michigan State University.

The pair argue that the polling data suggest Republicans and Democrats are becoming “more ideologically polarized,” at least on the issue of global warming. They attribute the increasingly divergent views on this issue to “party sorting” — that is, people choosing a party on the basis of its general views on this issue, or people within a party increasingly assuming the views on this issue that are espoused by leaders of their party.

Dunlap and McCright find that the tight correlation between party affiliation and attitudes about climate hold even after accounting statistically for other potentially confounding demographic factors such as gender, age, race, income and education. Moreover, they observe, throughout the past decade, “Republicans and Democrats who believe they understand global warming reasonably well [have been holding] more divergent views compared with their presumably less-informed counterparts.”

The bottom line? Democrats’ views about global warming have reflected scientific conclusions on climate change, while Republicans dismiss the scientific assessments.

Read on. 

Yesterday sociologist Dwight Lang wrote an opinion piece published in the Detroit Free Press. The University of Michigan professor offered commentary on the close presidential race this fall.

He writes:

Neither Democrat Obama nor Republican McCain will actually say “white working class,” but they do talk about “working” Americans or “blue-collar” workers as the backbone of America.

The critical importance of these voters is evidenced by the vice-presidential selections. We’ve heard how Joe Biden hails from an East Coast city where families struggle from paycheck to paycheck. He has worked his way up from humble roots and achieved the American Dream. His special appeal is to Catholics, who haven’t always voted Democratic in recent years. Sarah Palin’s modest background and straightforward style clearly speak to rural voters who identify with her version of the American Dream. Working women especially understand her efforts to balance career and family. 

He concludes:

Who wins this competition for millions of blue-collar votes may very well depend on who’s seen as capable of solving economic problems: bringing jobs back to America, reducing home foreclosures, and securing certain and bright futures for hardworking families.

Read the full piece.

This morning BBCnews.com posted an article entitled ‘The Path from Cinema to the Playground,’ which poses the following question to its readers: “A new film [Tropic Thunder] repeatedly uses the word “retard”. Can it be acceptable to use satirically or is it intrinsically offensive and a quick route to playground and workplace insults?”

Read the details of the use of this word in the film, here.

Reporter Finlo Rohrer writes:

For the opponents of Tropic Thunder, the path between film and television and “hate speech” is clear.

The UK provides an interesting crucible. While the word “retard” is extremely common in the US and crops up regularly in films, in the UK other epithets are more common. But it still has an immense power to offend, topping a poll by the BBC’s Ouch website for the most offensive disability-related words.

The sociologist weighs in…

If there are more school-children using the word “retard” in playgrounds this week, some might take that as an indicator of the malign power of the film.

“The media is very powerful, whether it’s films or comedy,” says sociologist Prof Colin Barnes, who studies the relationship between the media and disability. “Subliminal messages are distributed. ‘Spaz’ was popularised by Rik Mayall in the Young Ones. That really took off in the 1980s in schools.”

Read the full story at BBCnews.com.

The Telegraph (UK) reports today about a trend in universities in England to prohibit the use of certain words deemed offensive. Among them is the term ‘Old Masters,’ often used to refer to great painters, many of whom were men. Instead, the UK sociologists who developed the list suggest that this term discriminates against women and should be replaced with ‘classic artists.’ 

Telegraph reporter Martin Beckford writes:

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers. The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called “disablist” terms include patient, the elderly and special needs. It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase “man on the street”, and another banned staff from saying “brainstorm” in case it offended people with epilepsy.

Call in the sociologist!

…The list of “sensitive” language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years. Prof Frank Furedi, a sociologist at the University of Kent, said he was shocked when he saw the extent of the list and how readily academics had accepted it.

“I was genuinely taken aback when I discovered that the term ‘Chinese Whisper’ was offensive because of its apparently racist connotations. I was moved to despair when I found out that one of my favourite words, ‘civilised’, ought not be used by a culturally sensitive author because of its alleged racist implications.”

Prof Furedi said that censorship is about the “policing of moral behaviour” by an army of campaign groups, teachers and media organisations who are on a “crusade” to ban certain words and promote their own politically correct alternatives. He said people should see the efforts to ban certain words as the “coercive regulation” of everyday language and the “closing down of discussions” rather than positive attempts to protect vulnerable groups from offense.

Read the full story. 

CBNnews.com reports on a new study out of Baylor University’s Institute for the Study of Religion, which gathered American’s responses to questions about Christianity, religious beliefs and groups, as well as mystical experiences. 

In a poll of 1,700 adults, 55 percent answered yes to the statement, “I was protected by a guardian angel,” and 45 percent said they had at least two spiritual encounters in their life.

“I would never have expected these numbers. It was the biggest surprise to me in our findings,” sociologist Christopher Bader of Baylor University said. Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion conducted the study, which concluded that Americans’ religion is “remarkably stable.”

The Institute at Baylor University conducts this survey every two years and some changes have emerged since it was last administered.

In 2005, surveys showed that about 84 percent of Americans believe in Heaven or that Heaven could exist. Their most recent poll revealed about the same, but it also showed that 73 percent believe Hell absolutely or probably exists. About 46 percent said they were “quite certain” they’d go to Heaven, and 71 percent felt even the “irreligious” or non-believers had a chance at Heaven.

Read more.

This morning the Guardian (UK) reported on the battle over Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8, also known as the ‘California Marriage Protection Act,’ is a proposed amendment to California’s state Constitution which will only recognize heterosexual unions, eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Guardian article describes this battle as emblematic of a larger cultural divide in the United States. 

The Guardian reports:

Conservative and evangelical groups were freshly mobilised by the California supreme court’s decision in May to overrule voters’ approval of a ban on same-sex marriages in 2000.

But the movement has its roots in the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s, says University of California-Berkeley sociology professor Michael Hout.

“They got as far as they could on abortion and have embraced marriage laws as the next step in their agenda,” said Hout, co-author of The Truth About Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe. “Their main agenda remains the reversal of Roe v Wade, but they’re trying to gain new allies who look askance at gay marriage.”

Not that it’s a purely Machiavellian manoeuvre. Proponents of bans on same-sex marriage are “truly concerned that the state should not be licensing immoral behaviour”, Hout said.

“In their interpretation of the Bible, they see a prohibition on homosexual activity. Gay marriage condones a lifestyle that’s ruled out by their reading of the scripture.”

Read the full story.