Male/Female Is Not Enough: Adding Measures of Masculinity and Femininity to General Population Surveys

Survey research and sociological theory each provide insights into how and why people and groups act, think, and feel. Sociological theories identify what concepts are important for understanding and representing the social world. That is, sociological theories inform what to measure in surveys, and, to a certain extent, how to measure it. Survey research permits sociologists to carefully specify what is to be measured vis a vis sociological theory, setting surveys apart as a social research tool. It is this level of specification of concepts and measures that allow surveys to provide continued value at a time when “big data” proliferate. High quality survey measurement and estimation is necessary for sociologists to evaluate sociological theory among generalizable samples with well-developed questions, leading to further refinement and improvement of the theory and improved understanding of the social world. High quality surveys also provide insights into where sociological theories fail and where they must be adjusted for different subgroups, as well as basic insights into the prevalence of outcomes of interest. Together, sociological theory and survey methods produce insights about society that can inform decision-making and social policy. This mutually reinforcing relationship between sociological theory and survey methods requires sociological theory to evolve from insights obtained using survey methods and survey measurement to evolve with advances in in sociological theory. The measurement of sex and gender in surveys is one area where the development of survey measures has not kept pace with sociological theory and empirical, largely qualitative, findings. Contemporary gender theory sees sex and gender as separate concepts, both of which are important for understanding behaviors and outcomes. Yet, virtually all contemporary surveys measure sex as a binary “male” versus “female” categorization and fail to measure gender, ignoring important heterogeneity in gender identification that may exist within sex categories and any overlap that may occur across categories. Both gender scholars and survey researchers are potentially affected by this shortcoming of modern survey measurement. Gender scholars lose an important tool for assessing gender theories, especially on generalizable samples, risking conclusions that are specific to a small group of individuals rather than the population at large. Survey researchers risk producing theoretically obsolete data, limiting the utility of the data or potentially generating misleading conclusions. Survey data that fail to capture and reflect modern and complex understandings of our social realities also face increased risk of being replaced by “big data” such as administrative and social media data. Survey data that do reflect modern and complex understandings can bring value not available in administrative or other data and are therefore unlikely to be replaced. This paper is part of a growing chorus advocating for updates to how modern surveys measure sex and gender. We argue that the reliance on a single binary measure of sex (male or female) is out of step with current sociological understandings of sex and gender. In response, we propose and test a new theoretically-informed gradational measure of gender identification in a nationally representative mail survey. We evaluate whether respondents answer the gender measure and examine the reliability and predictive validity of the measure. In particular, we examine whether measuring gender gradationally adds explanatory value beyond sex on important social outcomes such as sexuality, childcare, grocery shopping, housework, working for pay, and military service. We also examine whether sex moderates the effect of gender identification in the ways that sociological theory would suggest on these outcomes

No evidence for root-mediated allelopathy in Centaurea solstitialis, a species in a commonly allelopathic genus

Phytotoxicity bioassays and pot experiments using activated carbon both suggest that Centaurea solstitialis (yellow star-thistle) does not rely on phytotoxic root exudates for invasion of California grasslands. Pot experiments in which five native species were grown in the presence/absence of C. solstitialis and in the presence/absence of activated carbon (fully crossed design) showed that C. solstitialis competitively suppressed native species, but did not inhibit them through allelochemicals. In separate experiments examining the role of root exudates in invasion success, treatment with crude root exudates and chloroform-extracted root exudates from C. solstitialis reduced growth of the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. However, high concentrations of the exudates (50%, v/v or 500 μg mL-1) were required to inhibit A. thaliana growth and did not result in A. thaliana mortality, suggesting the presence of only a weak growth inhibitor. Moreover, high concentrations of C. solstitialis crude root exudates did not affect the growth of five native grass species often displaced by C. solstitialis invasions in California grasslands. Finally, root exudates collected from C. solstitialis had weaker effects on a native California root parasite, Triphysaria versicolor, than root exudates collected from Zea mays, a species not renowned for its competitive or invasive capabilities. Our results suggest that, while C. solstitialis might possibly "be persuaded to yield a product that is toxic to one species or another" (Population biology of plants, Academic, 1977), we find no evidence that allelopathic root exudates play a role in the competitive success of this invasive.Fil: Qin, Bo. Colorado State University; Estados UnidosFil: Lau, Jennifer A.. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Kopshever, Joseph. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Callaway, Ragan M.. University of Montana; Estados UnidosFil: McGray, Heather. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Perry, Laura G.. Colorado State University; Estados UnidosFil: Weir, Tiffany L.. Colorado State University; Estados UnidosFil: Paschke, Mark W.. Colorado State University; Estados UnidosFil: Hierro, Jose Luis. University of Montana; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; ArgentinaFil: Yoder, John. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Vivanco, Jorge M.. Colorado State University; Estados UnidosFil: Strauss, Sharon. University of California; Estados Unido