Transportation is essential for everyday responsibilities like grabbing groceries or getting to work on time. But securing transportation can be difficult, particularly for people who live below the poverty line. Sociological research typically considers how poverty interacts with factors such as health, housing, and neighborhood crime, but rarely mentions transportation necessities. 

In a new research study, Alexandra Murphy and colleagues introduce the term transportation insecurity to describe difficulty traveling between places in a safe or timely manner. Experiencing transportation insecurity can include having unreliable, unsafe, or untimely transportation, as well as the emotional strain that can come from transportation problems.

Transportation insecurity is even more prevalent for those living below the poverty line. 53% of impoverished Americans experienced this phenomenon. Impoverished Americans are also most likely to experience the most severe level of transportation insecurity which may entail a higher frequency of car troubles, longer commutes, or other unsafe and inconvenient transportation conditions.

Americans who do not own cars, live in cities, are younger in age, do not have a high school diploma, or are non-white, also experience transportation insecurity more frequently.

One in four people in the United States struggle to secure safe and timely transportation. Over half of poor Americans have unreliable, unsafe, or untimely transportation. Clearly, then, policy aimed at alleviating the challenges of living in poverty needs to address transportation insecurity. One in four people in the United States struggle to secure safe and timely transportation

Parents must decide how much “screen time” is okay for their kids and how they are going to control technology use for their families. In new research, Stefanie Mollborn and colleagues examined how higher socioeconomic status (SES) families control their children’s technology use. They were surprised to find that families with higher socioeconomic status don’t set hard limits on technology use. Instead, parents and youth collaborated on setting boundaries around technology. 

Millborn and her team conducted 77 interviews with higher SES families. One of their most basic findings is that parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology. “Good” uses of technology included reading, information gathering, producing content, developing computer skills, and family time like watching tv or a movie together. “Bad” uses of technology included watching TV content individually and playing non-educational video games. parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology

Although parents identified “good” and “bad” uses of technology, they didn’t want to set hard limits on technology. The reason? Because they felt this would not help their children learn how to communicate with adults, a skill that they thought would benefit their children when they speak with adults in power outside of the home. 

Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, these parents sought to work collaboratively with their children. For instance, when April saw her daughter texting while doing her homework, she didn’t tell her not to do but but instead said: “Use it [technology] when it’s helpful. Have fun with it … but don’t let it consume you.”She then asked her daughter,“How does it feel to be sitting there doing your homework and you ‘get the ding’? Is that distracting? Would you like me to help you with a boundary?”Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, parents sought to work collaboratively with their children

This study highlights that parents with high socioeconomic status want to communicate about technology with their children, rather than setting hard limits. While parents tried to work collaboratively to set media limits with their children it produced conflict when youth pushed for technology use. Many high-income parents talked about just having to give in to their children at times because of the emotional effort involved in saying “no” so many times.

Many argue that well behaved students do not deserve to have their learning disrupted by unruly behavior. But what happens to the students who are expelled or suspended  for their misbehavior?

In new research, Dylan Jackson and colleagues find that children who have been expelled or suspended from school experience earlier and more frequent police encounters.  And that the nature of these stops can be traumatic, with officers using racial slurs, excessive force, and conducting intrusive searches. children who have been expelled or suspended from school experience earlier and more frequent police encounters

The researchers speculate that these early, frequent, and traumatic interactions with the police increase the likelihood of later incarceration because they foster distrust of police and may even lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. 

There are many reasons why youth who have been expelled might experience earlier and more traumatic contact with police. Children who do not have parents at home to supervise them may be out in public during school hours – where they are likely to be stopped and questioned by police because they look out of place.

School expulsion can also make it difficult for youth to graduate high school since they miss out on class time. Because it is harder for people without a high school diploma to find jobs, such youth may seek income through illegal activities.

Jackson and colleagues suggest that schools should replace expulsion with alternatives that are supported by evidence and do not raise the risk of police contact. One approach is school-based restorative justice, which empowers students with the communication skills needed to resolve conflicts and encourages teachers to refrain from punishing students. The goals of such alternatives are to promote student health and wellbeing, improve the school climate, and reduce racial disparities – while minimizing the disruptive effects of expulsion.

Across the United States, campaigns have pushed for higher minimum wages. Many are motivated by the economic benefits of these changes. New research suggests that increasing the minimum wage can also have substantial effects on non-economic domains of life such as marriage rates, family formation, and relationships.

Benjamin Karney and colleagues examined recent data on marriage and divorce rates in cities that had a minimum wage increase of $1 an hour. Their research revealed that small increases in the minimum wage have a significant effect on relationship patterns. Karney and his coauthors uncovered surprising, and somewhat contradictory, patterns.

In cities that raised the minimum wage, for example, there was actually a 5% decrease in marriage rates for men and 4.5% for women. On the other hand, researchers found that divorce rates fell by 10% for men and 7% for women after a year in these same cities. In cities that raised the minimum wage there was a decrease in marriage rates…divorce rates fell…in these same cities

The authors suggest that these decreasing marriage rates may result from higher minimum wages. When young people are more financially independent they can prolong their search for a better partner. Since marrying later usually results in longer-lasting unions, this change may spell stability for future families. 

Conversely, the researchers speculated that lower divorce rates are also due to worker’s lessened financial stress. By relieving economic concerns, the chances of divorce for couples are lessened.

Increasing minimum wages have many economic benefits. This research show that they also have significant effects on non-economic concerns such as relationships and families. These impacts may differ from our long-held assumptions about relationships. These non-economic changes are important to consider as communities work to raise wages. 

In the United States, it might seem like one party has a monopoly on nationalism. But, according to new research from Bart Bonikowski, Yuval Feinstein, and Sean Bock, nationalism mattered in the 2016 election for both Democrats and Republicans.  Bonikowski and colleagues found support for several types of nationalism (e.g., cultural nationalism), with Democrats and Republicans increasingly divided by which type of nationalism they support. They also found that this partisanship has increased over time.

The researchers argue that the radical right does not have a monopoly on nationalism. International research on radical-right politics has focused on forms of nationalism grounded in prejudices and resentment. This research focuses on the many different types of nationalism, each with its own view of national collective identity.

In their paper, Bonikowski and colleagues explored a nationally representative survey from the six days before Election Day 2016. They also looked at data from several representative surveys over the previous two decades. 

The researchers asked how nationalist beliefs impact elections. They found that many candidates’ supporters held nationalist beliefs. However, the kind of nationalism people supported differed by their political orientation.They found that many candidates’ supporters held nationalist beliefs. However, the kind of nationalism people supported differed by their political orientation. In fact, they found that over time nationalism is becoming increasingly partisan. From 1996 to 2016, believers in different forms of nationalism sorted themselves into different political parties.

The authors argue that partisan division in nationalism may threaten sociopolitical stability. These ideas of nationhood can be powerful and all-encompassing. In a time of considerable political polarization, increasing partisan division on nationalism could erode social solidarity, consensus and political stability.

As housing prices rise many are struggling to pay rent and face the risk of eviction. Social scientists have documented  many ways eviction harms families. But new research shows that eviction also hurts democratic participation. 

Gillian Slee and Matthew Desmond examined eviction records and voting records from the 2016 election. They found that the higher a neighborhood’s eviction rate, the lower its voter turnout rate.

Specifically, the researchers calculated a neighborhood’s average eviction rate between 2013 and 2015. They found a clear link between high eviction and low voter turnout in both rural and urban areas, as well as in deep blue or deep red states.

The hardship associated with eviction, they argue, puts strain on both the individual or family that gets evicted and on their social networks. For individuals, eviction lowers social trust, causes hardship, and decreases people’s faith in the legal system. These effects ripple through social networks, lowering voter turnout. Eviction lowers social trust, causes hardship, and decreases people’s faith in the legal system. These effects ripple through social networks, lowering voter turnout

The researchers identify several ways this could affect elections or dilute the voting strength of particular groups. For example, renters are more likely to be Democrats, Black or Latino. This means that any link between turnout and eviction could disproportionately affect these groups. 

Their data also show how expanding voting access might reduce the impact of eviction on voting. For instance, they found that eviction’s impact on voter turnout was less significant in states with same-day voter registration. If it’s easier to vote, particularly for people who are “residentially unstable,” then eviction might be less likely to disrupt turnout. 

More broadly, the researchers say that reducing eviction, through policies like establishing a right to counsel or expanding housing vouchers, could potentially increase voter turnout.

Ultimately, what this research shows is that affordable housing isn’t just an economic problem, or an issue affecting individuals and families. Evictions have profound consequences for democracy itself.

Parents with high levels of education and income spend a lot of money raising their children. They shuttle their kids between violin lessons and soccer practice, fill playrooms with toys designed to aid kids’ development, and squeeze in weekend visits to museums and exhibits. Low-income parents’ money, in contrast, is more tightly stretched, and tends to go towards necessities like bills and food. Can anything be done about these differences and inequalities? New research from Margot Jackson and Daniel Schneider suggests a potential solution, one that involves increased public investment for all kids.

Jackson and Schneider created and analyzed a new data set that links state-level investments in children and families with information on household spending on children over a period of fifteen years. Examples of state-level spending include things like public education, welfare, and Medicaid. Household spending includes purchases of educational books or toys or recreational equipment. They find that when public investment increases, inequality in parental spending on children decreases.

There are two reasons for these promising results. One is that low-income families have more money to spend on their children when public support helps families meet their basic needs. In other words, when income and healthcare are supplemented, families have more money available to invest in their children’s education and development.when public support helps families meet their basic needs…[they] have more money available to invest in their children’s education and development

At the same time, when there is more universal public investment in resources like schools, high-income parents spend less on their children, more confident in the resources their children are already receiving. In short, increased public investments allow low-income parents to spend more, and high-income parents to spend less.

Those of us who care about inequalities in parental spending on children know that early inequalities set the stage for a lifetime of differences in the opportunities and experiences available to people in their formative years. It can be difficult to imagine how these gaps can be narrowed. This research shows that these inequalities are not fixed or inevitable, and that more public spending on children can help equalize the playing field.  

With the growing price of rent and buying homes in America, the American dream of living and raising children in your own home is becoming inaccessible. In response to unaffordable housing, some families chose to raise their children in the homes of their parents or friends, what is referred to as “doubling up.” While these arrangements allow mothers economic stability, they also bring challenges because of deeply held societal understandings around good parenting.

Hope Harvey sought to understand the challenges that mothers face when trying to raise their children in another person’s household. She interviewed 29 mothers over 3 years (2012-2015). Through her interviews, she found that the mothers’ questioned their identity as adults while “doubling up.” One of the main reasons was that the women felt being in charge of your own home was essential to being a good parent.mothers’ questioned their identity as adults while “doubling up”… women felt being in charge of your own home was essential to being a good parent

One example is TaKayla, who says,” I think that’s important [to have my own home] because I just want to see what it’s like to have my own family…I want my kids to be around me, their father, and just do our own thing. Go through our own holiday celebrations together and experience the whole mommy is getting up, cook dinner and breakfast stuff. See dad going to work, kiss him when he get back home, ‘How was your day?’ Stuff like that. I want to experience that.” We see from Takayla’s description that she feels home ownership affects almost all parent-child interactions. This also connects to other mothers who felt that being a “normal family” is based on white-heterosexual norms and being in charge of your own home. 

Another challenge was hosts (home owners and lease holders) challenging mothers’ parenting by giving children conflicting instructions. One example is Toni, who talked about how she would tell her children,”to go lay down” and rest but then her father, whose home they were living in, would tell the kids to, ”come on, go outside. Go out in the backyard.” 

Women pushed back against these challenges to their identities as adults and mothers. One of the main ways women in the study tried to resist their feelings of inadequacy was to set up private areas in the house where only the mothers and their children could go. They referred to these places as their “apartments” or “ little houses,” and tried to symbolize ownership of these spaces by calling these spaces ”their rooms.”Women pushed back against these challenges to their identities as adults and mothers

The second way they protected their motherhood was preventing the hosts from giving conflicting orders to their children. The mothers did this by having conversations with the owners of the home about their parenting expectations. They also told the hosts to let them be the ultimate decision-maker in terms of how to raise their children and to follow their lead. If these arrangements were not agreed upon, the mothers ended the living arrangement. 

The article highlights that while economic resources are currently limiting the ability of mothers to practice a traditional style of parenting, many people still hold traditional understandings of parenting that rely on owning a home or leasing their own apartment. These idealizations create tension for parents living in homes that they do not own or rent themselves. Harvey found that mothers must grapple with this tension every day and find creative ways of fulfilling traditional parenting ideals within their current living situations.

Male survivors of sexual assault and violence are often misunderstood, particularly queer men. Doug Meyer researched how queer men of different races perceived their experiences of sexual assault. He finds that white queer men and Black queer men understand their sexual assaults differently.

Meyer interviewed sixty queer men in the United States who were survivors of sexual assault. Previous research has shown that emasculation is common among male survivors. By experiencing sexual violence men may feel that their masculinity or “manhood” has been lost or damaged. Meyer asked whether queer men also felt emasculated by sexual assault and whether this differed by race. He finds that white queer men generally understood their assault as emasculating, but such feelings were much more rare among Black queer men. 

Instead, queer Black men highlighted feelings of loneliness and social isolation following their assault. This social isolation stemmed from a lack of support from family and the broader community, as well as fears that they would not be believed. Further, Black men emphasized fear of police hostility following their assault. Because of racist and/or homophobic experiences, queer Black men lacked resources to heal from sexual trauma and therefore felt alone. Queer Black men highlighted feelings of loneliness and social isolation following their assault

David, a young Black gay man, explained his feelings following his assault: “I felt very alone. Like I couldn’t tell anyone, like there was no one I could go to. The police wouldn’t believe me, my family would have asked why I went there. I tell the police, they’re gonna look at it as I’m making trouble – who is going to believe me?”

Because of distinct experiences due to social marginalization  and racism, queer Black men do not perceive their assault as a form of emasculation. Contrary to prior research, Meyer found that only white queer men in his study felt emasculated. This study reminds us to reexamine commonly held assumptions about sexual assault and explore how the experiences of survivors differ across multiple identities.

For decades, conservatives have claimed that higher education has a negative influence on students’ moral and political development. A new study from Miloš Broćić and Andrew Miles provides research on one of the most understudied and misunderstood of these claims: the effect of college attendance on moral values.

Using data from the National Study of Youth and Religion, Miles and Broćić found that people who attend college are more likely to have a greater concern for others, less of a concern for social order, and be less relativistic. They used data from both before people enrolled in college and after people attended to look at the influence of college, specifically. 

People who went to college are more likely to say that compassion for people who are suffering is most important, but less likely to say that kids need to respect authority or that morals are relative. Moral relativists believe that morality is relative: that is, moral truths are not absolute and can change from one society to another, or over time.People who went to college are more likely to say that compassion for people who are suffering is most important, but less likely to say that kids need to respect authority or that morals are relative

Notably, this is distinct from previous work that found increased moral relativism among academics. This could be because college’s role in moral socialization has changed over the years. These days, critics of higher education are more likely to argue that it leads students to not be relativistic enough: too uncompromising in their morality. The authors say that their study provides preliminary evidence in favor of this critique.

Our values are fundamentally shaped by the environments and institutions we find ourselves in, and this research brings us closer to understanding how going to college shapes students as human beings.