Measuring and framing support for universal basic income

We execute an original survey experiment to examine the extent and determinants of support for a nascent policy issue, universal basic income (UBI), in the American public. We explore the effects of how UBI is framed (either in the context of values or the context of policy), finding three key results. First, UBI is primarily a Democratic and liberal policy. Second, negative arguments against UBI move support for UBI more than positive arguments. Third, and surprisingly, respondents are equally affected by both policy-driven and value-driven arguments about UBI. In conclusion, an increase in messaging about UBI is likely to widen existing partisan differences in UBI support. These differences are unlikely to be won over by policy or values arguments.     

Do Volunteers Volunteer to do More at Work? The Relationship Between Volunteering,Engagement, and OCBs

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations - Many non-profit organizations rely on volunteers to further their mission, but volunteer rates linger at only 25% of the...     

“Just a Typical Teenager”: The Social Ecology of “Normal Adolescence”—Insights from Diabetes Care

In Western society “normal adolescence” is understood to be a biologically driven phase characterized by emotional turmoil and irrational behavior. Despite being discredited within academic literature this discourse persists both in formal theory and everyday use. Drawing on the case of diabetes care, I argue that the discourse of “normal adolescence” derives its power from its value as a vocabulary of motive through which to navigate the contradictions inherent in the social order at this stage of the life‐course. While helping us to comprehend sociologically the ecological niche in which “normal adolescence” is sustained, this analysis raises questions about the persistence of this discourse for social action.     

Social Evolution and Environmental Context: Explanative Pluralism and Potentiality

We identify four common, but we argue fallacious, reasons social scientists object to theories that rely on environmental conditions to explain variation in the evolution of societies. First, some sociologists exclude environmental forces as beyond the domain of sociology. Second, environmental theories are often pejoratively labeled “determinist,” and rejected on those grounds. Third, environmental theories are regularly dismissed as being functionalist. Fourth, environmental theories are frequently charged with being Eurocentric and serving to justify colonialism and social inequalities. We argue that although there are examples of theories that fail in these regards, there is no inherent reason that environmental theories are more prone to these limitations and problems than are more sociologically “pure” theories. We argue that sociology should strive to be more transdisciplinary and can benefit from consideration of environmental conditions.     

Whites’ Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy: Are Multiracial Individuals a Source of Group Threat or Intergroup Contact?

This study uses multilevel modeling with data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the Pew Research Center’s 2006 and 2011 surveys to examine the relationship between the relative size of the multiracial population, specifically mixed-race whites, in metropolitan areas and the immigration attitudes of native-born non-Hispanic whites. The results indicate that whites who live in metropolitan areas with higher percentages of mixed-race whites are more likely to hold comparatively immigrant-friendly attitudes in general and specifically toward immigration levels, taxes, and employment, supporting contact theory. With increases in the multiracial population, whites are likely to adopt a more complex conception of race over time, leading to context-specific and topic-centered attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy.