National crises can have long lasting impacts beyond the day or year they occur. For example, in the wake of September 11th, American nationalism increased. However, the unity Americans displayed was an exclusive form of nationalism that pitted many U.S. citizens against non-citizens. A recent study found that following the 9/11 national crisis, non-citizens in the United States faced a greater likelihood of imprisonment than citizens. In fact, by 2010 nearly 48 percent of the federal docket was comprised of cases against non-U.S. citizens. 

Michael Light, Ellen Dinsmore and Michael Massoglia examined a database of federal criminal felony offenses that includes case type, defendant characteristics, court location, and judge-specific data. They find non-U.S. citizens living in New York and Washington D.C were eight percent more likely to be imprisoned than U.S. citizens after 9/11. The increased likelihood of incarceration for non-citizens in New York and D.C. was evident for a full four years after September 11, 2001.

The authors suggest that the reason for this disparity in criminal punishment is not due to changes in federal policies, but instead due to judges being less sympathetic to defendants without American citizenship during times of national emergencies. In other words, the federal criminal justice system is not unbiased: Legal actors like judges can be affected by national fear during times of crisis. The findings show legal patterns of inequality that target non-U.S. citizens — raising the question of whether the American penal system has become a component of immigration enforcement.

This research raises important questions about the functioning of democratic institutions in the wake of national emergencies. The findings show legal patterns of inequality that target non-U.S. citizens — raising the question of whether the American penal system has become a component of immigration enforcement.

Originally published April 17, 2019.

Men are less likely than women to consider becoming vegetarian. And in the United States, where men have higher rates of life-threatening health conditions than women — including uncontrolled high blood pressure and heart disease — changing eating habits may be important for their health. To learn more about meat and masculinity, Researchers Sandra Nakagawa and Chloe Hart conducted a study examining how gender identity influences eating habits.

Nakagawa and Hart conducted experiments to test whether a threat to masculinity influences men’s likelihood of eating meat. In one experiment, the researchers told some men their answers from a previous survey fell in the “average female” range, while others fell into the “average male” range. For the men who received “average female” results, the authors expected them to feel like their masculinity was in question.Men who experienced a threat to their masculinity showed more attachment to meat and were more likely to say they needed meat to feel full.

Men who experienced a threat to their masculinity showed more attachment to meat than those who did not experience the threat. They were also more likely to say they needed meat to feel full and were less likely to consider switching to a diet with no meat. This study shows that masculinity does matter for how men maintain their health. Importantly, it is not masculinity itself that is the problem here, but the high standards men feel they must meet — and eat.

Originally posted November 5, 2019.

The term ‘gaslighting’ earned its name by way of the 1944 film, Gaslight. In the film, an antagonist secretly brightens and dims his home’s lights, making his wife doubt her sanity and sense of reality. Despite the cinematic origins of its label, this form of abuse is experienced by many women. Though psychologists have extensively investigated the subject, little attention has been paid to the role that underlying social characteristics may play. In new research, Paige Sweet fills this void by revealing how social characteristics affect individual experiences of gaslighting within domestic abuse.

Through a series of life course interviews, Sweet finds that abusers mobilize gender stereotypes, racial stereotypes, and victims’ institutional settings in order to manipulate their victims’ sense of reality. Women of different racial and social backgrounds experience gaslighting in different forms; whereas an abuser might prey upon a black woman’s fear of becoming a stereotypical “baby mama,” another might threaten an undocumented Hispanic woman with deportation. Despite differences, abusers in Sweet’s study utilized “crazy-making” tactics for all women — drawing on stereotypes that men are rational, while women are irrational. “Micro tactics of abuse are situated in macro conditions of inequality.”

Sweet’s argument that “micro tactics of abuse are situated in macro conditions of inequality”  helps us to understand why gaslighting can be so effective at stripping down one’s sense of reality; by drawing attention to existing power structures and inequalities, abusers are able to gain a greater sense of legitimacy and tailor their tactics to a victim’s personal social experiences. It is crucial that we understand the forces that underlie gaslighting in order to more effectively recognize symptoms of abuse, and subsequently support the victims who experience it. 

Originally posted February 5, 2019.

Throughout history, concerns about women’s sexual behavior and reproduction have often been tied to mental health. For example, in the Victorian era, doctors believed that women’s bodies were incapable of physical exertion and mental activity, and they diagnosed many women — typically white women– with “hysteria.” Hysteria was a catch-all term often used to police women’s sexuality and bodies, and was characterized as a mental disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual until 1980. While diagnosing women with hysteria may seem like an outdated practice today, mental health professionals still exercise control over women’s sexuality and reproductive choices. A recent study finds that clinicians today use both coercive and non-coercive techniques in facilitating reproductive decisions for their clients — especially female clients — diagnosed with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and major depression.

Using interview data with 98 patients at two state hospitals and three community mental health centers, Brea Perry, Emma Frieh, and Eric Wright examine clients’ interactions with service providers and family members regarding their sexual behavior and contraceptive use. The authors find that mental health professionals use strategies ranging from full client participation (what the authors call “enabling”) to no input by the client (what the authors called “coercion”).  Women’s mental health remains inextricably linked to concerns about women’s bodies and their sexual behavior.

Providers used coercive techniques more frequently with women than with men. In the most extreme cases, this took the form of unwanted and traumatic sterilization procedures. More frequently, providers and female clients’ family members did not include women in key decisions, provided misinformation, or did not gain consent for the birth control medications prescribed. For male clients, providers used education through classes or group therapy more frequently. While these sessions often framed sex as risky for male clients, this technique allowed men much more reproductive freedom than many women experienced. The researchers also found that providers used “enabling” strategies (those that included full client participation), like  providing condoms or sex starter kits, for both genders at similar rates.

These findings demonstrate that women’s mental health remains inextricably linked to concerns about women’s bodies and their sexual behavior. Gender norms and expectations, especially those regarding sexual behavior and reproduction, have enduring impacts on our understanding of mental illnesses, as well as the medical decisions made for or by people diagnosed with a mental illness. To avoid these patriarchal patterns in the the future, Perry and colleagues suggest providers focus more on sex positivity rather than risk avoidance for their clients.

Supporters of global family planning initiatives argue these programs can empower women in (mostly) low-income countries by giving them options to control their reproduction. New research shows that the structure of these programs may actually constrict women’s choices. 

Leigh Senderowicz conducted 49 in-depth interviews with women in a low-income sub-Saharan African country that is engaged in a variety of family planning initiatives. These initiatives are part of the global FP2020 initiative  — its goal is to add 120 million contraceptive users worldwide by the year 2020. The focus and structure of these initiatives shape how health clinics operate and how providers interact with patients. For example, health centers are evaluated based on national- and district-level quotas for contraceptive uptake. Providers can only get “credit” towards these quotas if a patient accepts a form of contraception, not if providers inform the patient about contraceptive options and the patient declines. In other words, the structure of the programs incentivize providers to convince patients to use contraception.
These family planning initiatives’ focus on quotas meant that contraception was the only option.

In turn, providers use a range of coercive tactics to convince women to use contraception. On one end of the spectrum, providers offer a limited selection of contraception options to patients. In this study, the most common forms were contraceptive pills, implants, and injectables. Instead of tailoring the method to a patient’s specific needs, providers primarily emphasized the advantages of a few long-term contraceptive methods without giving other options, and sometimes even failed to disclose risks of use. Few women in this study were ever told about barrier methods, IUDs without hormones, or fertility-based awareness methods. 

Providers also used more overt forms of coercion, like threatening to deny women future care and refusing to remove an IUD at one woman’s request. These actions do the opposite of empowering women through introducing contraception as one option of many. Instead, these family planning initiatives’ focus on quotas meant that contraception was the only option.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support doctor-assisted suicide laws. These laws — also known as death with dignity or aid-in-dying laws — allow people with terminal illnesses to request medical assistance to hasten their deaths. Eight states and Washington, D.C. have death with dignity laws and 19 more are considering similar policies. Yet, only about half of Americans believe doctor assisted suicide is moral. New sociological research shows that understandings of a “good death” may help explain these competing views. 

Cindy L. Cain and Sara McCleskey conducted focus groups with 39 people shortly after California’s aid-in-dying law passed. Participants considered the aid-in-dying law good when it eases suffering, takes a burden off family members, and results from an individual’s choice. This is consistent with previous research documenting Western ideals for a good death: pain relief, acceptance, mending of familial and other important relationships, and not being a burden to others. In line with these ideals, participants characterized aid-in-dying laws as bad when their use is seen as suicide or “a way out.” Death may be a physiological process, but how we understand death is social.

Not all participants viewed aid-in-dying laws the same way. African American and Latino participants expressed concerns that aid-in-dying laws could mean worse medical care, especially for people who already struggle to access medical institutions, knowledge, and treatment. Some specifically voiced concerns that discrimination would make them targets for an early death.

Death may be a physiological process, but how we understand death is social. Cultural conceptions of what a “good death” entails shape how people make sense of new options for end-of-life care. But even when these options align with understandings of a “good death,” discrimination and resulting distrust of medical institutions can mean that marginalized people do not see aid-in-dying as a safe option.

For more on racial disparities in mortality, check out the Center for Disease Control’s 2017 report.

As the school year gets underway, many students are excited to get their schedules and find out which friends will be in their classes fall semester. But who is in their third-period Pre-Calc and seventh-period Physics may matter for more than just socializing. New research shows that friends’ and classmates’ preferences for school subjects influence adolescents’ opinions of STEM subjects, which potentially affects their occupational choice and earnings.

Isabel J. Raabe, Zso´fia Boda, and Christoph Stadtfeld examined Swedish adolescents’ social networks over time to find out how peers influence preferences for STEM subjects. A survey asked students about their favorite subject and who their best friends were in the class, first in eighth grade and then a year later. Controlling for socioeconomic status and cognitive ability, the researchers analyzed and compared the influence of friends and other students on the STEM preferences of boys and girls. “Our findings suggest the STEM pipeline model should be conceived as a social pipeline model, in which effects of peer exposure
and friend influence are considered important factors in female dropout from STEM careers.”

They found that while both boys and girls like what their friends like, social influence on favorite subject was stronger among boys. Since the boys in the sample were mostly friends with boys and the girls were mostly friends with girls, social influence came primarily from same-sex friends. Because boys already tended to prefer STEM subjects more at the start of the study, they were more likely to be exposed to STEM-preferring friends.

Girls, on the other hand, were influenced less by their friends’ favorite subjects than by simply having other girls in their class who preferred STEM subjects. This presence of girls who like STEM seemed to protect female students from negative consequences associated with violating gender norms, like preferring STEM subjects.

Despite Sweden’s policy efforts to reduce gender gaps, gender disparities among engineers and scientists persist. By identifying another factor influencing these disparities, this study can inform new solutions to keep young women in the STEM pipeline.

Books like The Rise of Women and The End of Men herald the academic success of young women in the United States today, but the image of the “genius” is still male. And fields that emphasize the importance of raw intelligence, like physics, economics, and computer science are still male-dominated. How can both of these social facts co-exist? New research from Michela Musto suggests that racialized and gendered classroom management practices in schools may be part of the problem. How teachers respond to talking out of turn establishes a hierarchy of intelligence in middle school classrooms, where high-achieving white boys are considered “brilliant” and more exceptional than girls, and low-achieving Black and Latino boys are viewed as “bad.”

Musto spent 2.5 years observing in a public middle-school in Los Angeles, talking to over 190 racially-diverse students. This article examines patterns of rule-breaking, especially talking out of turn, in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade math classes. In higher-level courses, which overwhelmingly consisted of white and Asian students, boys monopolized classroom discussions in eighth grade because teachers tolerated their interruptions and regularly allowed them to challenge their female classmates in sixth and seventh grade. Musto’s data shows that this disparity in who acts as the expert in high-level classrooms contributes to a belief among eighth-grade girls and boys that boys are more exceptionally intelligent than girls. How teachers respond to talking out of turn establishes a hierarchy of intelligence in middle school classrooms.

In lower-level courses, dominated by Black and Latino students, harsh discipline from teachers caused disengagement for some eighth-grade boys. Musto observed that students came to see Latino boys as the “dumbest” kids in school because teachers repeatedly challenged their competency, and high levels of policing left Latino boys academically disengaged. Race also mattered in higher-level classes because teachers tolerated non-academic interruptions from white boys, but not Asian ones. 

Taken together, racialized tracking and teacher response to students helps us understand the continued sense among students that while girls are smart, the truly exceptional students are white boys.

In general, Americans are positive about the idea of “diversity.” Yet, they may also have mixed, ambivalent feelings about living in a diverse area. In a recent article, Erin Hoekstra and Joseph Gerteis show that people express their mixed feelings through discussions of social order and civic engagement. This “civic talk” allows people to speak positively about the idea of diversity while also expressing misgivings about their changing neighborhoods and the presence of new, different groups.

The authors conducted fieldwork and interviews in neighborhoods in Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis in the summer of 2003. Each neighborhood was fairly racially homogenous. In Los Angeles and Minneapolis, the neighborhoods were over 75% white, while the neighborhood in Atlanta was over 75% Black. The authors coded their field-notes and interviews to illustrate how people discussed diversity as an ideal in tension with their accounts of personal experiences. By using “civic talk,” residents maintained a positive orientation toward diversity, while simultaneously voicing their misgivings or apprehension about living in a more diverse area.

Participants frequently said that diversity was a positive, harmonious characteristic of their neighborhood. However, several people also discussed discomfort with others in their neighborhood and challenges associated with diversity. In identifying misgivings, participants used two aspects of civic life to voice their concerns. First, residents brought up the concept of “social order” to identify groups or newcomers who they associated with causing trouble or violating neighborhood rules. Second, residents would discuss a groups’ lack of “civic engagement,” such as not participating in the neighborhood association. By using “civic talk,” residents maintained a positive orientation toward diversity in the United States, while simultaneously voicing their misgivings or apprehension about living in a more diverse area.

In a recent interview, Hollywood superstar Tom Hanks confessed: “No matter what we’ve done, there comes a point where you think, ‘How did I get here? When are they going to discover that I am, in fact, a fraud and take everything away from me?’”

Some highly successful people frequently feel like impostors—that they have attained their status through luck, not merit. Psychological research on impostor syndrome has treated it as a durable personality trait that comes from within and does not change based on context. Sociologists counter that imposter syndrome should be thought of as a social process. The social environment — such as organizational rules, incentives, and culture — structures interactions between people and affects the development of impostor syndrome. The social environment structures interactions between people and affects the development of impostor syndrome.

Researchers Emma Cohen and Will McConnell surveyed 1,476 graduate students at a midwestern university to examine the relationship between the graduate school environment and impostor syndrome. They discovered three factors in the graduate students’ perceptions of their departments that influence feelings of impostorism:

• Mentorship: Survey results showed that students who experience higher-quality mentoring report lower fears of impostorism. Because grad students are often expected to excel in research and teaching while completing their studies, objective metrics like test scores and letter grades give only a narrow view of student performance. A quality mentor fills the gap by giving a graduate student specific and helpful feedback to identify strengths and areas for growth. Lacking a mentor, or having a strained relationship with a mentor, opens space for self-doubt.
• Competition: Unsurprisingly, the researchers found that students who perceive greater funding competition score higher on the impostor syndrome scale. Some graduate departments guarantee funding for all admitted students. In others, students must compete for assistantships and fellowships. The latter type of department leads many students to feel inferior to the few students who are awarded funding, even if they may be successful by other metrics.
• Isolation: The study showed that students who feel isolated are more likely to feel inadequate. When graduate students are able to talk openly with others in their program, they may realize that feelings of self-doubt are common. This can help them to persevere and form more realistic self-evaluations.

Graduate schools can do more to help their students than offering individual strategies to overcome self-doubt. Training faculty to be good mentors, celebrating a variety of student achievements, and creating opportunities for students to connect with each other, can reduce feelings of fraudulence among their talented students.