Physiological Correlates of Volunteering

We review research on physiological correlates of volunteering, a neglected but promising research field. Some of these correlates seem to be causal factors influencing volunteering. Volunteers tend to have better physical health, both self-reported and expert-assessed, better mental health, and perform better on cognitive tasks. Research thus far has rarely examined neurological, neurochemical, hormonal, and genetic correlates of volunteering to any significant extent, especially controlling for other factors as potential confounds. Evolutionary theory and behavioral genetic research suggest the importance of such physiological factors in humans. Basically, many aspects of social relationships and social activities have effects on health (e.g., Newman and Roberts 2013; Uchino 2004), as the widely used biopsychosocial (BPS) model suggests (Institute of Medicine 2001). Studies of formal volunteering (FV), charitable giving, and altruistic behavior suggest that physiological characteristics are related to volunteering, including specific genes (such as oxytocin receptor [OXTR] genes, Arginine vasopressin receptor [AVPR] genes, dopamine D4 receptor [DRD4] genes, and 5-HTTLPR). We recommend that future research on physiological factors be extended to non-Western populations, focusing specifically on volunteering, and differentiating between different forms and types of volunteering and civic participation

Panel data in sociology: the fixed effects paradigm and empirical practice in panel regression and event-history analysis

In der soziologischen Methodenforschung werden Paneldaten als Instrument diskutiert, welches eine fundiertere Überprüfung einer kausalen Hypothese als Querschnittsdaten ermöglicht. Zur Realisierung dieses Potenzials ist allerdings die Isolierung intraindividueller Zusammenhänge im Rahmen der Schätzprozedur notwendig. Bei multivariaten Regressionsanalysen leistet dies die Fixed Effects Regression, welche sich daher im methodologischen Diskurs als Standard zur Analyse von Paneldaten etabliert hat. In dieser Studie wird erstens dieser Standard aus verschiedenen Perspektiven begründet und zudem sein Äquivalent im ereignisanalytischen Kontext diskutiert. Zweitens stellen wir auf der Grundlage einer Vollerhebung von panelbasierten Studien in der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (KZfSS) und in der Zeitschrift für Soziologie (ZfS) fest, dass in der soziologischen Praxis weder die Kausalitätsannäherung als Motiv zur Verwendung von Paneldaten dominiert, noch der Fixed Effects-Schätzer konsequent eingesetzt wird. Diese Inkonsistenz wird als Ausdruck eines underusage von Paneldaten in der empirischen Praxis gedeutet. Gleichzeitig erkennen wir hierin ein Indiz dafür, dass Motive zur Nutzung von Paneldaten in der Soziologie vielfältiger sind, als es der methodologische Diskurs nahelegt. Abstract In sociology there is a growing body of literature discussing the ability of quantitative research methods to test causal inferences. This discourse introduces panel data as an important instrument to defend the interpretation of coefficients as effects: by focusing on what is going on within individuals, panel data allow for longitudinal empirical modelling, which reflects the inherent semantic of scientific hypotheses. As a consequence, unobserved heterogenity is absorbed and alternative explanations to the presumed causal mechanisms are largely ruled out. However, a within-, or rather Fixed Effects-estimator is needed to realize this potential of panel data. Consequently, such within-estimators are well established as standard in the methodological discourse on panel data. We explain this standard with references to the mechanics of within-estimators in panel-regression and event-history analysis. Finally, inspection of contributions to the two major German language journals for sociology shows that within-estimators are rarely used in empirical practice. We conclude that the potential of panel data to control for heterogeneity is largely underused in empirical practice. At the same time, our inspection of studies illustrates that the benefits of panel data are multidimensional and go beyond statistical virtues

The Job Change: A Three-Part Process with Variations for Men and Women

There are three essential elements in the job-change process: 1) reasons for quitting the previous job; 2) unemployment between jobs; and 3) job search strategy in getting the present job. Of these three, job search has most often been the topic of prior sociological research. Using earnings as an indicator of job quality, I find that job-quit type is a more important factor than job-search type, and continuity of employment between jobs is a better predictor than either of these. There are variations by gender: Women report quitting for personal reasons much more often than men, but are similar to other women in present earnings. Men who quit for personal reasons are in the lowest present-pay group. Both women and men suffer earnings penalties when unemployed between jobs, but females’ penalties are greater. Overall, the best outcomes are found for workers who are able to maximize their job-change choices by securing a new job before the job-quit and having no break in employment between jobs. © 1997 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights received

Was Wright Wrong? High-Class Jobs and the Professional Earnings Advantage

Wright and Perrone (1977) was an outstanding empirical analysis of social stratification, a major contribution to Marxist analysis of classes in modern capitalism, and an important contribution to popular discourse and academic research on "social class" in the United States. Since 1977, however, debates with "bean counters" in sociology and "epistemological and ontological purists" within Marxism have yielded a multidimensional game-theoretic exploitation model that falls far short of Wright and Perrone (1977) on standards of social science, Marxism, commonsense, and the potential for inspiring future scholarship. Thus I propose moving away from game theory and toward Tilly's (1998) model of durable inequality, which might accommodate the dialectic of life and work. Copyright (c) 2005 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.