That social capital matters is an established fact in the social sciences. Less clear, however, is how different forms of social capital affect gender disadvantages in career advancement. Focusing on a project-based type of labor market, namely the U.S. film industry, this study argues that women suffer a “closure penalty” and face severe career disadvantages when collaborating in cohesive teams. At the same time, gender disadvantages are reduced for women who build social capital in open networks with higher degrees of diversity and information flow. Using large-scale longitudinal data on career profiles of about one million performances by 97,657 film actors in 369,099 film productions between the years 1929 and 2010, I analyze career survival models and interaction effects between gender and different measures of social capital and information openness. Findings reveal that female actors have a higher risk of career failure than do their male colleagues when affiliated in cohesive networks, but women have better survival chances when embedded in open, diverse structures. This study contributes to the understanding of how and what type of social capital can be either a beneficial resource for otherwise disadvantaged groups or a constraining mechanism that intensifies gender differences in career advancement.

Prior studies that try to explain who gets tenure and why remain inconclusive, especially on whether non-meritocratic factors influence who becomes a professor. On the basis of career and publication data of virtually all sociologists working in German sociology departments, we test how meritocratic factors (academic productivity) as well as nonmeritocratic factors (ascription, symbolic, and social capital) influence the chances of getting a permanent professorship in sociology. Our findings show that getting tenure in sociology largely depends on scholarly output, as previous studies have shown. Improving on existing studies, however, we show specifically that each refereed journal article and each monograph increases a sociologist's chance for tenure by 10 to 15 percent, while other publications affect one's likelihood for tenure only marginally and in some cases even negatively. Regarding non-meritocratic factors, we show that network size and individual reputation matter, while international experience and the reputation of one's university do not directly affect the likelihood of tenure. Women need on average 23 to 44 percent fewer publications than men to get their first permanent position as university professor. Thus, all else being equal, they are about 1.4 times more likely to get tenure than men. The article contributes to a better understanding of the role of meritocratic and non-meritocratic factors in achieving scarce and highly competitive job positions. ZusammenfassungBei der Frage, wer eine Professur bekommt, sind sich bisherige Studien insbesondere über den Einfluss nichtmeritokratischer Faktoren unschlüssig. Auf Basis von Lebenslauf-und Publikationsdaten fast aller an soziologischen Instituten in Deutschland beschäftigten Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen und Sozialwissenschaftlern testen wir, wie meritokratische (wissenschaftliche Produktivität) und nichtmeritokratische Faktoren (Askription, symbolisches und soziales Kapital) die Chance beeinflussen, auf eine Soziologieprofessur berufen zu werden. Es zeigt sich, dass eine Berufung vor allem von der Anzahl wissenschaftlicher Publikationen abhängt. Mit jedem referierten Zeitschriftenaufsatz und jeder Buchpublikation steigt die Chance auf eine Berufung um 10 bis 15 Prozent an, während andere Publikationsarten sie nur moderat oder sogar negativ beeinflussen. Unter den nicht-meritokratischen Faktoren zeigen sich insbesondere Netzwerkfaktoren wie auch individuelle Reputation als relevant. Internationale Erfahrung sowie das Prestige der Herkunftsinstitution weisen keine direkten Effekte auf. Frauen, so das weitere Ergebnis der Untersuchung, benötigen im Schnitt 23 bis 44 Prozent weniger Publikationen als Männer, um einen Erstruf zu erhalten. Unter sonst gleichen Faktoren liegt ihre Chance auf eine Professur um das 1,4-fache höher als die ihrer männ-lichen Kollegen. Insgesamt leistet die Studie einen Beitrag zur Beantwortung der Frage, wie und wie stark meritokratische und nichtmeritokratische Faktoren die Chancen auf sehr knappe, zugleich hoch komp...

Why do the poor spend more on lottery tickets than their wealthier and better educated peers? While social scientists generally agree that there is an inverse relationship between socioeconomic position and patterns of lottery play, there is debate on what factors cause lottery gambling. Using survey data from a nationwide probability sample, we test three sociological approaches -socio-structural, cultural and social network accounts -to explain why the poor play the lottery. While controlling for cognitive bias theory, we find that peer play, educational attainment and self-perceived social deprivation have strong effects on lottery play. Culture, the study finds, plays a much lesser role. Although lottery players demonstrate fatalistic value orientations, it is not a lack of a 'Protestant' work ethic that makes the poor spend proportionally more on lottery tickets. The findings of this study generally point to the importance of social structures in explaining lottery gambling.

No abstract