No abstract

Prior research has shown that individuals living in Southern areas express significantly less tolerant attitudes than the rest of the nation, while individuals residing in urban areas express significantly more tolerant attitudes than their rural peers. We seek to explain these generally unspecified Southern and urban effects by identifying demographic contextual factors that affect individuals' tolerance levels. Using 1976 General Social Survey and 1990 Census data, we find that net of individual factors, residing in an area with a larger proportion of college graduates significantly increases individual levels of tolerance, while residing in an area with a larger proportion of evangelical Protestants significantly decreases tolerance. We also find that the Southern and urban effects on tolerance become non-significant once contextual-level controls are added.

His other recent publications on values have appeared in Social Science Quarterly ('Race, class and gender differences in high school seniors' values ', Vol. 82) and Sociological Perspectives ('Suggestions of the postmodern self ', Vol. 46). He is also active in research on urban racial inequality in the United States.Despite extensive discussion and analysis over the past three decades, researchers are still divided over the preferability of rating or ranking systems for measuring values. However, the debate originates from the false premise that one method must be used to the exclusion of the other. A conceptualization of the value structure that uses characteristics of both rating and ranking systems opens up theory and research to a more complex understanding of values. Data from the 1995-1997 World Values Survey demonstrate how using both rating and ranking systems can lead to distinct and equally valid conclusions about the differences in value importance among the nations of the world. This suggests that either method by itself provides an incomplete understanding of the value structure. While the potential methodological complications of using both ratings and rankings must be explored, the additional cost would be a productive investment for moving beyond the rating-ranking impasse.One way that research on values differs substantially from research on many other social science topics is the inexact definition of the object of analysis. While quantitative items such as wages and fertility are (largely) agreed upon in their definition and how they are to be measured, values do not have a single, unified definition nor a universal model of measurement. The choices that researchers make in defining what a value is not only determine the nature of the item of analysis (the value structure) but also the method of measurement (ratings or rankings). Therefore, a meta-analysis of values research must address two related questions. First, how are values structured in an individual's mind? Second, how does one measure a value?Historically, values research and theory have focused on the measurement question much more extensively than-and perhaps even to the neglect of-the structure question. The debate over the nature of values has most often been engaged on methodological grounds, specifically whether values are best measured with ranking or rating systems. This debate remains unresolved 30 years after it first became prominent in social science research. While there have been intermittent contributions to the literature

Residential and occupational segregation are two structural systems that perpetuate the disadvantaged status of blacks in American society. Despite extensive research on both these topics, there has been little empirical examination as to whether they are independent systems or both part of a larger monolithic system of racial inequality. An analysis of 1990 Census data for 261 metropolitan areas shows that there is a negative zero‐order correlation between the two forms of segregation. However, controlling for the size of the population accounts for the negative correlation. Net of this exogenous factor, the correlation between the two forms of segregation is not statistically significant. This suggests that for individuals, the issue of racial inequality is one of tradeoffs between forms of disadvantage as one moves from city to city. For policymakers, these results indicate that urban racial inequality is multidimensional, requiring different strategies for different manifestations.

Objective. This article demonstrates how intersection theory can be applied in empirical studies by testing whether an individual's race, class, and gender have interactive effects. Methods. Data on high school students' ratings of the importance of equality, money, career, and family from the Monitoring the Future study are used. A stepwise regression model is employed to determine first whether additive effects exist in the data, and then whether interactions exist among race, class, and gender characteristics. Results. Previous findings of additive effects were generally confirmed in the first stage of the regressions, with some exceptions. For the money and family values, significant interactions exist between some pairs of characteristics, but three-way interactions were not significant. For equality and career values, no significant interactions were found. Conclusions. Although there are times when additive models are sufficient to describe differences among groups, the omission of interaction terms can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions about the effects of race, class, and gender. Using intersection theory in empirical models will guard against this oversight and may lead to a broad theory of when significant race, class, and gender interactions should be expected.In a 1983 article on sex role attitude differences, Ransford and Miller noted that in most previous research on stratification, socioeconomic status, ethnicity/race and gender are somewhat separate hierarchies, each affecting the distribution of power, privilege and prestige. . . . More accurate predictions and a fuller theoretical understanding often result from a consideration of the intersections or joint effects of SES [socioeconomic status], race and sex. These intersections of status positions represent unique social spaces within which persons construct explanations of reality. (46) *Direct all correspondence to Seth Ovadia,