Pick Your Poison: Examining Adolescent Substance Use through Opportunity Theory

The present study examines substance use behaviors of middle and high school students, focusing on how varying influences of opportunity measures impact use of specific types of substances. The data used in the present study come from almost 4,000 students within 89 school contexts from students attending public school in a Southern state. Hierarchical logistic modeling is used to explore the influence of various opportunities at both the student and school levels on the use of different types of substances. Results indicate measures of opportunity at both the student and school levels were significant; however, measures at the individual level were consistently more influential.     

Education and Social Trust: Testing a Causal Hypothesis Using the Discordant Twin Design

One of the clearest results in previous studies on social trust is the robust positive relationship with educational attainment. The most common interpretation is that education has a causal effect on social trust. The theoretical argument and empirical results in this article suggest a different interpretation. We argue that common preadult factors such as cognitive abilities and personality traits rooted in genes and early‐life family environment may confound the relationship between educational attainment and social trust. We provide new evidence on this question by utilizing the quasi‐experiment of twinning. By looking at the relationship between education and social trust within monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs, we are able to avoid potential confounders rooted in genetic factors and common environmental influences because the monozygotic twins share both. The results suggest that when controlling for such familial factors the estimated effects of education on social trust are close to zero and far from reaching statistical significance. Further analyses show that the relationship between education and social trust largely is driven by common genetic factors.     

Questioning Gender and Sexual Identity: Dynamic Links Over Time

Dichotomous models of gender have been criticized for failing to represent the experiences of individuals who claim neither an unambiguously female nor male identity. In this paper we argue that the feminist theoretical framework of intersectionality provides a generative approach for interpreting these experiences of gender multiplicity. We review our previous research on four young sexual-minority (i.e., nonheterosexual) women who are participants in a 10-year longitudinal study of sexual identity development, applying the framework of intersectionality to understand their exploration of transgendered experience and identification. Our analysis highlights the value of intersectionality as a framework for understanding not only multiplicity across identity constructs (e.g.., race, gender, etc.) but also within identity constructs (i.e., female and male).     

Women's neuroethics? Why sex matters for neuroethics

The Neuroethics Affinity Group of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) met for the third time in October 2007 to review progress in the field of neuroethics and consider high-impact priorities for the future. Closely aligned with ASBH's own goals of recruiting junior scholars to bioethics and mentoring them to successful careers, the Neuroethics Affinity Group placed a call for new ideas to be presented at the Group meeting, specifically by junior attendees. One group responded with the idea to probe a new direction for neuroethics focused on the neuroscience of gender differences. In the spirit of full disclosure, two of the authors are a student (Chalfin) and fellow (Murphy) of the program I formerly directed at Stanford University. The third (Karkazis) is junior faculty there. The intellectual ownership of the ideas in the report below, however, are entirely theirs. Like lit torches in a juggling act, there are many directions this project can go. The report is a snapshot of these authors' first iteration of the concept of women's neuroethics. Many thanks are extended to participants of the ASBH Neuroethics Affinity Group meeting whose enthusiasm and feedback was immensely helpful in shaping the concept and moving it ahead.     

The Behavioral Logic of Collective Action: Partisans Cooperate and Punish More Than Nonpartisans

Laboratory experiments indicate that many people willingly contribute to public goods and punish free riders at a personal cost. We hypothesize that these individuals, called strong reciprocators, allow political parties to overcome collective action problems, thereby allowing those organizations to compete for scarce resources and to produce public goods for like‐minded individuals. Using a series of laboratory games, we examine whether partisans contribute to public goods and punish free riders at a greater rate than nonpartisans. The results show that partisans are more likely than nonpartisans to contribute to public goods and to engage in costly punishment. Given the broad theoretical literature on altruistic punishment and group selection as well as our own formal evolutionary model, we hypothesize that it is being a partisan that makes an individual more likely to be a strong reciprocator and not vice versa.