The recent proliferation of studies examining cross-national variation in the association between parenthood and happiness reveal accumulating evidence of lower levels of happiness among parents than nonparents in most advanced industrialized societies. Conceptualizing parenting as a stressor buffered by institutional support, we hypothesize that parental status differences in happiness are smaller in countries providing more resources and support to families. Our analyses of the European Social Surveys (ESS) and International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) reveal considerable variation in the parenthood gap in happiness across countries, with the U.S. showing the largest disadvantage of parenthood. We also find that more generous family policies, particularly paid time off and childcare subsidies, are associated with smaller disparities in happiness between parents and non-parents. Moreover, the policies that augment parental happiness do not reduce the happiness of nonparents. Our results shed light on macro-level causes of emotional processes, with important implications for public policy.

No abstract

Recent studies find that health returns to education are elevated among those who come from disadvantaged families. These findings suggest that education may be a health resource that compensates or “substitutes” for lower parental socioeconomic status. Alternatively, some studies find support for a cumulative (dis)advantage perspective, such that educational health returns are higher among those who already were advantaged, widening initial health (dis)advantages across the life course. However, it remains unclear whether these findings are dependent on gender or cohort, and this is a fundamental oversight given marked differences between men and women in educational and health inequalities across the twentieth century. Drawing on national US data (1980–2002 General Social Survey with 2008 National Death Index Link), I indeed find that the presence or strength of resource substitution or cumulative (dis)advantage depends upon health measure as well as gender and cohort. For self-rated health, cumulative (dis)advantage explains educational health disparities, but among men only. Cumulative (dis)advantage in avoiding fair or poor health is partly explained by cohort and age variation in health returns to education, and cumulative (dis)advantage in excellent health is more robust in earlier cohorts and at older ages. For mortality, resource substitution is instead supported, but for women only. Among those from disadvantaged families, educational mortality buffering increases with cohort but diminishes with age. Taken together, these findings confirm prior research showing that adult health inequalities linked to education depend on family background, and extend this work by demonstrating that the nature and extent of these dynamics differ considerably depending on the health outcome being assessed and on an individual's historical context, life course stage, and gender.

Personality has yet to be examined as an indirect yet powerful determinant of the diversity of personal social networks that is independent of preference‐ and population‐based mechanisms. I use the 2004 General Social Survey to illustrate how dispositional optimism shapes core discussion network size as well as demographic heterophily among core ties. I find that optimism is associated with enhanced network size as well as ties among nonkin and across lines of age, education, and race. Following these results, I urge closer attention to personality as it dynamically shapes the social structure of opportunities and resources.

In academia, women trail men in nearly every major professional reward, such as earnings, publications, and funding. Bibliometric studies, however, suggest that citations are unique with regard to gender inequality: female penalties have been reported, but gender parity or even female premiums are routinely documented as well. Two questions follow from this puzzle. First, does gender matter for citations in sociology and neighboring social science disciplines? No theoretically informed study of gender and citations exists for the social science core. We begin to fill this gap by analyzing roughly 10,000 publications in economics, political science, and sociology. In contrast to many big data studies, we estimate the effect of author gender on citations alongside other author-, article-, journal-, and (sub)field-level predictors. Our results strongly suggest that when male and female authors publish articles that are comparably positioned to receive citations, their publications do in fact accrue citations at the same rate. This finding raises a second question: Why would gender matter “everywhere but here”? We hypothesize that the answer is related to the mechanisms (e.g., self-selection, biased assessments of commitment) that are activated in the context of some professional rewards but not citations. We discuss why a null gender finding should not be discarded as an anomaly but rather approached as an analytical opportunity.