Monthly Archives: December 2011

Downward trend: 51% of American adults are married

Posted on by

In the continuation of a sizable demographic shift over the last few decades, fewer adult Americans than ever before are married:

Barely half of all adults in the United States—a record low—are currently married, and the median age at first marriage has never been higher for brides (26.5 years) and grooms (28.7), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census data.

In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just 51% are. If current trends continue, the share of adults who are currently married will drop to below half within a few years. Other adult living arrangements—including cohabitation, single-person households and single parenthood—have all grown more prevalent in recent decades.

The Pew Research analysis also finds that the number of new marriages in the U.S. declined by 5% between 2009 and 2010, a sharp one-year drop that may or may not be related to the sour economy…

It is beyond the scope of this analysis to explain why marriage has declined, except to note that it has declined far less for adults with college educations than among the less educated. Some of the increase in the median age at first marriage over the long term can be explained by the rising share of young adults enrolled in college, who have tended to marry later in life; recently, there are indications that adults who are not college graduates also are marrying later. Fallout from the Great Recession may be a factor in the recent decrease in newlyweds, although the linkage between marriage rates and economic hard times is not entirely clear.

There are a number of charts here regarding more specific bits of information. The most interesting statistic here, in my opinion: marriage is affected by educational status.

What the article doesn’t talk about is what the alternative to marriage is or is becoming. Single-parenthood? Cohabitation? Fewer long-term relationships? This seems like a particularly interesting issue for millennials – what will their future families and relationships look like?

I would be interested to hear what the younger generations say most influences their decisions in this area. Parents? Friends? Public role models or media figures? Changing narratives about what to expect in marriage?

This is another reminder that marriage and family patterns change over time.

Why a small minority of Americans don’t use Facebook

Posted on by

The New York Times has a piece looking at why some Americans don’t use Facebook:

As Facebook prepares for a much-anticipated public offering, the company is eager to show off its momentum by building on its huge membership: more than 800 million active users around the world, Facebook says, and roughly 200 million in the United States, or two-thirds of the population…

Many of the holdouts mention concerns about privacy. Those who study social networking say this issue boils down to trust. Amanda Lenhart, who directs research on teenagers, children and families at the Pew Internet and American Life Project, said that people who use Facebook tend to have “a general sense of trust in others and trust in institutions.” She added: “Some people make the decision not to use it because they are afraid of what might happen.”…

Facebook executives say they don’t expect everyone in the country to sign up. Instead they are working on ways to keep current users on the site longer, which gives the company more chances to show them ads. And the company’s biggest growth is now in places like Asia and Latin America, where there might actually be people who have not yet heard of Facebook…

And whether there is haranguing involved or not, the rebels say their no-Facebook status tends to be a hot topic of conversation — much as a decision not to own a television might have been in an earlier media era…

Some quick thoughts:

1. This is a relatively small percentage of Americans who don’t use Facebook. If 200 million Americans are on Facebook, that is the vast majority of people 13 years old and above. Roughly 15-20% of Americans are not eligible for Facebook (older 2000 figures here). The comparison made in the article is to the percent of people without cell phones which is roughly 16%.

1a. Because of its general ubiquity, perhaps it would be more interesting then to differentiate between people who it frequently (multiple times a day?) versus those who check infrequently (say once a week or less).

1b. Is this the activity Americans most share in common perhaps beside watching TV?

2. Privacy issues don’t seem to bother most Facebook users. Even though there may be little revolts when Facebook changes its privacy policy or makes a mistake, this isn’t driving people away in large numbers. And, as I’ve said before, if you want to remain private you should probably stay off the Internet all together. Another warning for non-users: Facebook may already have information about you anyway.

3. It would be interesting to see figures of how long people stay on Facebook. And speaking of getting people to see advertisements, this small study used eye tracking to see what catches people’s attention when they look at profiles.

3a. If Facebook does need to keep users’ attention, is there a line between always having to change things versus helping people feel comfortable with the site? I say this as we await the Timeline change and the inevitable negative responses.

4. As the article hints at by briefly looking at the pressure non-users get from Facebook users, there is a whole set of social norms that have arisen around the use of Facebook.

Official existing home sales statistics to be revised downward

Posted on by

The National Association of Realtors announced that existing home sales figures for recent years will be rechecked and revised downward after some errors in counting were discovered:

Data on sales of previously owned U.S. homes from 2007 through October this year will be revised down next week because of double counting, indicating a much weaker housing market than previously thought.

The National Association of Realtors said a benchmarking exercise had revealed that some properties were listed more than once, and in some instances, new home sales were also captured.

“All the sales and inventory data that have been reported since January 2007 are being downwardly revised. Sales were weaker than people thought,” NAR spokesman Walter Malony told Reuters…

Early this year, the Realtors group was accused of overcounting existing homes sales, with California-based real estate analysis firm CoreLogic claiming sales could have been overstated by as much as 20 percent.

So if you thought the existing real estate market was in bad shape in recent years, it was actually worse than you thought. However, it will be interesting to see how much these statistics are revised and then how these changes affect things like the stock market. A little change may not matter much.

This is a reminder about trusting “official” figures too much. On one hand, it would be hard for the average citizen to gather this information. Therefore, we have to trust certain data sources. On the other hand, official measurements can be affected by a variety of factors and always should be considered probabilistic since they are often based on surveys and not 100% counts or “proof.”

The changing standards in dress for NBA players and its impact on social norms

Posted on by

One writer suggests that the current clothing styles of NBA stars is related to social norms for black men:

When David Stern imposed the league’s reductive dress code six years ago, all this role-playing, reinvention, and experimentation didn’t seem a likely outcome. We all feared Today’s Man. But the players — and the stylists — were being challenged to think creatively about dismantling Stern’s black-male stereotyping. The upside of all this intentionality is that these guys are trying stuff out to see what works. Which can be exciting. No sport has undergone such a radical shift of self-expression and self-understanding, wearing the clothes of both the boys it once mocked and the men it desires to be.

It’s not a complete transformation. Being Carlton wasn’t just code for nerd, it was code for gay, and the homophobia these clothes provoked still persists, even from their wearers. Once last year, Dwight Howard, of the Orlando Magic, wore a blue-and-black cardigan over a whitish tie and pink shirt to a press conference. When a male reporter told him it was a good color on him, instead of asking the reporter “Which color?,” Howard spent many seconds performing disgusted disbelief: Whoa, whoa. A moment like that demonstrated how hopelessly superficial all this style can be. The sport can change its clothes, but, even with Dan Savage looking over its shoulder, will it ever change its attitude? If Howard thinks compliments about his cardigan are gay, he probably shouldn’t wear one.

Still, something’s changed in a sport that used to be afraid of any deviations from normal. That fear allowed Dennis Rodman to thrive. Now Rodman just seems like a severe side effect of the league’s black-male monoculture. The Los Angeles Lakers officially recognize the man who was involved in one of the most notorious fights in sports history as “Metta World Peace.” Baron Davis, of the Cleveland Cavaliers, spent the summer in a lockout beard that made him look like a Fort Greene lumberjack. And Kevin Durant wears a safety-strapped backpack. If Stern was hoping to restore a sense of normalcy to the NBA, he only exploded it. There no longer is a normal.

Summary of the argument: in a big shift, it is now acceptable, and perhaps even cool, to be a wealthy black athlete who dresses like a nerd.

I could imagine several interpretations of this trend (and these would likely come from different groups of people):

1. A Marxist approach. David Stern has succeeded in pushing black stars to dress like preppy whites in order to further the economic interests of the NBA. This isn’t about allowing these stars to express themselves; it is about making them palatable to a white audience that buys tickets, corporate sponsorships, and drives TV ratings.

2. The clothes may have changed but there is not exactly overwhelming support for gay athletes or perhaps even for having more “feminine” traits.

3. There is a broader “star culture” or “celebrity culture” that transcends basketball and unites the broader entertainment industry. Star athletes today are not just physically unique; they are cultural celebrities and need to dress the part to fit in with their reference group.

4. Athletes today care too much about things like clothes and not enough about winning.

5. Black male culture was never that homogeneous. Using “The Fresh Prince” as the primary cultural example in this article is a limited perspective. The media and society might have one image but it is not necessarily accurate.

6. Is examining how stars dress like nerds continuing a negative stereotype about nerds and the importance of education? Does the way LeBron James dresses change the culture’s views of nerds or does his celebrity still push a macho image tied to basketball competition and physical prowess or perhaps a stylish, sophisticated, and wealthy image?

In the end, the intersections here between athletes, race, gender, and fashion are fascinating to consider.

Social science findings can help you find the perfect gift

Posted on by

As you shop this holiday season, some recent social science research can help you find just the gift you need. Keep these principles in mind:

1. You don’t have to spend any time looking for “thoughtful” gifts.

2. You don’t have to spend much money, either.

3. Actually, you may not have to spend any money.

Yes, I know this sounds too good to be true. I was skeptical, too, if only because it contradicts a previous holiday column of mine. After looking at anthropological research into the potlatch, and talking with a Kwakwaka’wakw Indian chief who carries on this gift-giving ritual in British Columbia, I concluded that lavish presents are essential to social harmony.

Read on to find out the results of experimental studies and how this compares to the ritual of potlatches. In this whole process, you may be best off using your “generalized other” and trying to anticipate what the receiver might want rather than doing what you would want.

It strikes me that all of this is inherently cultural. As gift givers and receivers, we have ideas about what the social norms are for each of these positions. When the norms (and our expectations) are not met, we feel hurt. It seems like these experiments are suggesting that the norms about gifting are changing and “manners” and “polite” behavior hasn’t quite caught up yet. If my cultural idea is correct, then experiments done in different cultural settings or perhaps even among different American generations would show differences.

An alternative takeaway: the Amazon wish list will (or already is?) taking over the whole ritual of gifting in American culture.

Sociologist argues carers need more support

Posted on by

In the high-stakes discussions taking place in a number of countries, a British sociologist argues countries should support one group more: carers.

Some 6.4 million people in the UK care for sick, disabled or frail friends and relatives – and they’re often punished for doing so. Many of them pay a “triple penalty”: damage to their health; a poorer financial situation; and restrictions in everyday life. The intrinsic unfairness of this situation is made all the more remarkable by the fact their work and effort saves the public purse £119bn a year – more than the whole budget of the NHS. But in the current climate of public sector cuts, how can we make their lives better without costing the earth, and support those who wish to care without giving up paid work?…

Our report New Approaches to Supporting Carers’ Health and Well-being: evidence from the National Carers’ Strategy Demonstrator Sites Programme highlights ideas that work to help carers stay well and healthy, to get a short break or chance to meet their own needs. For carers struggling to make ends meet, small investments in gym memberships, laptops or short holidays make a real difference, yet cost only a fraction of what needs to be spent if their care breaks down or cannot be sustained.

Special health and wellbeing checks spotted many physical and mental conditions, including diabetes, depression and cancer, which – as carers often put their own needs second to those of others – were previously undiagnosed. When GPs or hospitals work together with social services and voluntary agencies in their area, support for carers can really improve at a comparatively small cost…

Circle researchers have consistently made the case for better carer support. Our work has informed policy developments under both Labour and coalition governments. Unsupported, carers risk exhaustion, isolation and stress – yet when valued and offered flexible services, many see caring as among the most rewarding and important things they have ever done.

In the debates over health care costs in the United States, I haven’t heard much about carers. I wonder if some might argue that these caring duties shouldn’t be rewarded by the government but rather are familial or relational duties. But, if health care costs are a public problem, might it not make sense to invest here?

I wonder how millennials feel about this. Frankly, it probably hasn’t entered their minds much.

If sociologists have some interest in concepts like the sick role, do we have notable scholarly works addressing the role of carers?

Using “amateur sociology” to have better Christmas conversations

Posted on by

One columnist has some tips in “amateur sociology” in how to deal with all the conversations you might encounter during the Christmas season:

Tis the season for amateur sociology – if we want to share space with one another happily, that is. With parties and family get-togethers, tension and social gaffes lurk behind every pine swag. And so in honour of the holiday spirit – and the need to enjoy each other’s company, even if you have to pretend – I offer some observations about the art of conversation…

That’s the thing about pleasant conversation. It’s a dance of fancy footwork, a minefield of social explosive devices to be avoided, the exact opposite of what the popular culture of confession and narcissistic Facebook commentary suggests is important. A good conversationalist has a feel for nuance; an understanding of grace; an ability to make careful entrees and gentle exits. He is not obsessed with his own status updates. And he’s adept at skilled deflections.

To make for happy party dynamics, you must demure at times, remain silent when necessary, nod, listen, dare to be conventional and find refuse in a discussion about the weather.

Rarely do you need to say exactly how you feel, especially if it’s about Aunt Shirley’s disgraceful behaviour at the last family get-together.

In recent years, I’ve read various people suggesting that the art of good conversation is slowly dying, particularly among younger generations. Common targets for this include Facebook (like above), rougher political discourse, and a growing sense of incivility.

But, it seems to me that if you want people to be good at conversation, they have to be taught and they have to practice. This is true of any social norm or practice. This doesn’t necessarily mean going to finishing school or things like that but there should be commonly-found settings where good conversation can be found. Reading a tips column like this doesn’t help too much because it can’t prepare one for all the twists and turns a human-to-human conversation might take. Perhaps reading more Erving Goffman and other notable symbolic interactionists could help. Or perhaps keeping Mead’s “generalized other” in mind would help.

So who wants to take up this task?

“Muck mansions” and “bungalow bliss” in Ireland

Posted on by

The United States is not the only country with housing issues. Here is a description of some of the issues in Ireland, complete with references to “muck mansions” and “bungalow bliss”:

A major study of the impact of the Celtic Tiger property boom on the Irish landscape has slammed the damage done to the countryside, to rural towns, and to people who have to endure long commutes…

It says that the damage done by the ‘McMansions’ or ‘Muck Mansions’ of the past decade is worse than the effect of the ‘bungalow bliss’ era in the 1970s…

“The mark left on the landscape by the Celtic Tiger society has been profound. A sense of lifestyle entitlement is reflected in the one-off ‘McMansion’ housing in rural areas, with SUVs on cobble-lock driveways, satellite dishes and decking that is seldom used but always seen.”

The McMansions are on a bigger scale, the book says, referring to “a conspicuous two-storey house faced in either red brick or stone, with protruding conservatory and a detached garage. Frequently sited in commanding locations, they dominate the landscape, reflecting their role as status symbol as well as home.”

The description of a McMansion is intriguing. On one hand, there are similar traits compared to American McMansions: ties to SUVs, “entitlement” culture, conspicuous design, sprawl and long commutes, and status symbols. On the other hand, there are some differences: Irish McMansions are said to be in rural areas (though I’m not sure they really have suburbs like the US does so maybe this is similar), the garage is separate, and they are placed in “commanding locations” where everyone else can see them. The general connotation that these are undesirable places and that such homes are either symbols or causes of economic troubles is very similar.

There is something to this alliteration: “muck mansions” and “bungalow bliss.” Any good ideas about similar terms that could apply to the US housing market?

The rise of dollar stores and the questions that should follow

Posted on by

In recent years dollar stores have had a lot of growth:

Surveys have shown that today’s shoppers are more likely to make purchases in dollar stores lately, and chains such as Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Family Dollar have experienced outstanding sales growth as a result…

Now, according to a study by retail research firm Colliers International, dollar store locations outnumber drugstore locations in the U.S. Specifically, Colliers added up the number of locations for four national dollar store chains (Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, 99 Cents Only), and compared that figure to the total number of locations for the country’s three biggest drugstore chains (CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens).

The tally, as of mid-2001, stood at 21,500 dollar stores vs. 19,700 drugstores…

Also, the dollar store chains have all experienced remarkably strong sales in recent years, and have been expanding like crazy as a result. Dollar General, for example, has nearly doubled its location total over the past decade, 5,000 to more than 9,500 stores today. And counting.

I’ve wondered recently why Walmart gets a lot of attention while drug stores, particularly Walgreens in this area, and dollar stores have been expanding. Whenever I walk into a Walgreens, I can’t help but think they are mini-Walmarts. Walgreens sells everything from prescriptions to ice cream to photos to cosmetics and so on. Dollar stores are similar but cheaper, selling everything from food to detergent to household supplies.

After noting the growth in dollar stores, we could ask some questions about the effects these stores have. Clearly, they offer cheap goods. But: Are dollar stores good for the local economy? Do they provide good jobs? Do they tend to be found in areas of sprawl or strip malls and are dependent on automobile traffic? Are the goods primarily made in the US or overseas? Is the food for sale healthy? Perhaps these questions aren’t asked since it is assume dollar stores will recede in popularity when the economy improves. But since this likely won’t be for a while, shouldn’t we think about what it means to have a lot of dollar stores?

The effect of race in presidential pardons

Posted on by

An analysis from ProPublica shows that whites benefit more from presidential pardons:

In an in-depth investigation of the presidential pardons process, published this week, ProPublica found that white applicants were nearly four times as likely to succeed as minorities, even when factors such as the type of crime and sentence were considered.

The president ultimately decides who gets a pardon, but Presidents George W. Bush and Obama have relied heavily on recommendations from the Office of the Pardon Attorney inside the Justice Department.

The experts ProPublica talked to don’t all agree on exactly what should be done. Sociologist Frank Dobbin has this suggestion:

“If the goal you want is equivalence for black and whites, the solution should not be to put in more bureaucracy to limit decision-makers’ authority,” Dobbin said. “The solution should probably be some oversight system where the numbers are looked at regularly, and then decisions should be revisited when it looks like there’s some disparity.”

Studies show that more minorities get jobs when companies track race and appoint an individual or board to independently review hiring decisions, Dobbin said.

A number of other experts seem to agree: having an independent board review the decisions would help keep the issue of race at the forefront and help avoid implicit biases.

My first thought when reading this is that why should we expect this to be any different knowing that the criminal justice system is tilted statistically against non-whites and away from white-collar crimes. If traffic stops, convictions, jail time, and death-row decisions are influenced by race, why wouldn’t pardons?

My second thought: are presidential pardons archaic? Do they really benefit society or are they about tradition or political favors (see the recently-revealed disagreement between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over pardoning Scooter Libby)?

According to the analysis, some other factors that help people get pardons include having “letters of congressional support” and being married.