While probability sampling has the advantage of permitting unbiased population estimates, many past and existing monitoring schemes do not employ probability sampling. We describe and demonstrate a general procedure for augmenting an existing probability sample with data from nonprobability-based surveys ('found' data). The procedure, first proposed by Overton (1990), uses sampling frame attributes to group the probability and found samples into similar subsets. Subsequently, this similarity is assumed to reflect the representativeness of the found sample for the matching subpopulation. Two methods of establishing similarity and producing estimates are described: pseudo-random and calibration. The pseudo-random method is used when the found sample can contribute additional information on variables already measured for the probability sample, thus increasing the effective sample size. The calibration method is used when the found sample contributes information that is unique to the found observations. For either approach, the found sample data yield observations that are treated as a probability sample, and population estimates are made according to a probability estimation protocol. To demonstrate these approaches, we applied them to found and probability samples of stream discharge data for the southeastern US.

We examine whether anticipated gender discrimination—specifically, gendered sanctions for leadership failure—decreases women’s leadership ambitions. We find that laypeople expect that women leaders will be punished more harshly for failure than otherwise similar men. We also compare the leadership ambitions of women and men under conditions of benign and costly failure and find that leadership roles with costly failure—which implicitly have the potential for gendered sanctions for failure—disproportionally depress women’s leadership ambitions relative to men’s. Anticipated sanctions for failure mediate this effect, providing evidence that anticipated gender discrimination reduces women’s leadership ambitions. These results illuminate microlevel foundations of the stalled revolution by demonstrating how gendered beliefs about leadership are recreated, legitimized, and contribute to the dearth of women leaders. These findings also suggest that organizational responses to failure may produce gender differences in leadership ambitions and risk-taking behavior.

A fundamental task for sociology is to uncover the mechanisms that produce and reproduce social inequalities. While status characteristics theory is the favored account of how social status contributes independently to the maintenance of inequality, it hinges on an unobserved construct, expectation states, in the middle of the causal chain between status and behavior. Efforts to test the mediation mechanism have been complicated by the implicit, often unconscious, nature of status expectations. To solve this “black box” problem, we offer a new conceptualization and research approach that capitalizes on the accuracy and precision of neurological measurement to shed new light on the biasing role of expectations in the status–behavior relationship. Results from an experimental study provide a unique illustration of ways in which social status is inscribed in the brain and how, in turn, these inscriptions are related to behavioral inequalities that emerge during interaction.

We conduct an extensive review of the literature on testosterone and economic risk-taking behavior. In sum, there is evidence of a positive association between testosterone and economic risk taking, although it is unlikely to be a strong association given the abundance of null results. However, we argue that the existing literature may overstate the causal effects of testosterone on economic risk taking (or even report a spurious correlation) because this research has not considered the potentially confounding role of social status.Status could concurrently influence both testosterone and economic risk taking, given that testosterone is a social hormone with a reciprocal relationship with social status, and social status has been found to drive risk-taking behavior. We also argue against using findings from this literature to make gender essentialist claims, primarily because social phenomena influence the size-and existence-of gender differences in economic risk-taking behavior. We conclude with suggestions for future research.

Risk-takers are rhetorically extolled in America, but does this veneration ignore the downsides of failure? We test competing perspectives on how workplace risk-takers are perceived by examining cultural attitudes about individuals who successfully take, unsuccessful take, and avoid risks at work. The results of two experiments show that, in comparison to risk-avoidance, expected workplace outcomes are enhanced by successful risktaking and that failure does not appear to significantly harm expected workplace outcomes for risk-takers. While one experiment finds that failed risk-takers are seen as more likely to be downsized (because they are viewed as more foolish), we also find failed risk-takers are perceived as more likely to be hired and promoted. Mediation analyses reveal this is primarily because risk-taking-regardless of outcome-considerably increases perceptions of agency and decreases perceptions of indecisiveness, and these attributions predict positive workplace outcomes. We also find the results to be remarkably similar across varying participant characteristics (namely, gender, race, education level, work experience, income, and age), which suggests that there is a broad cultural consensus in the U.S. about the value of risk-taking. In sum, we find evidence that observers generally make more positive attributions about risk-takers than about risk-avoiders, even when risk-takers fail.PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.risk-taking should, in and of themselves, influence judgements about risk-takers, as experimental research has found that when people become arbitrarily associated with rewards or success, people judge them more favorably than those associated with fewer rewards or failure [8,9]. This suggests that outcomes of risk-taking behavior will influence attributions made by observers, with successful risk-takers being perceived as more competent (given that they are more likely to receive material rewards), and failed risk-takers as less competent (given that they are less likely to receive material rewards), than risk-avoiders. Since perceived competence guides the distribution of workplace and reward outcomes generally [10], these attributions should further magnify the benefits of successful risk-taking and amplify the costs of unsuccessful risk-taking. Thus, this "negativity bias perspective," strongly suggests that, relative to risk-avoiders, risk-takers' reputations are likely to face more downside from failed risk-taking than upside from successful risk-taking.However, failed workplace risk-taking may have fewer negative effects on attributions than the negativity bias perspective would predict. Through its intimate connection with entrepreneurialism [11], risk-taking signals a plucky agency and confidence [3]. Many ethnographic accounts of workplaces also testify to the social value attached to risk-taking, from the managerial world [4] to bond sales [12] to the tech sector [3]. Even when risk-takers did not succeed, Neff (2012) explained that the mere act of taking risks became seen by certai...