JCS 外刊吃瓜

本周JCS 外刊吃瓜

將繼續為大家推送

社會學國際頂刊

American Sociological Review

(《美國社會學評論》)

的最新目錄與摘要

作為美國社會學學會（ASA）的旗艦期刊，

American Sociological Review

ASR

本期內容

American Sociological Review為雙月刊， 最新一期（Volume 90 Issue 3, June 2025）一共收錄了6篇文章，詳情如下。

Frame Backfire: The Trouble with Civil Rights Appeals in the Contemporary United States
《結構悖論：當代美國民權訴求的困境》
Fabiana Silva, Irene Bloemraad, Kim Voss

(Not) Getting What You Deserve: How Misrecognized Evaluators Reproduce Misrecognition in Peer Evaluations

《（未）得到應得之物：被誤解的評估者如何在同行評估中再造誤解》
Mabel Abraham, Tristan L. Botelho, James T. Carter

Making Sense of Honor Killings

《理解“榮譽處決”》
Ozan Aksoy, Aron Szekely

Essentializing Merit: Disability and Exclusion in Elite Private School Admissions

《必要的優點：精英私立學校招生中的障礙與排斥現象》
Estela B. Diaz, Lauren A. Rivera

Positioning Stories: Accounting for Insecure Work

《定位故事：對不安全工作的一個解釋》
Kathleen Griesbach

Uneven Mixing, Network Segregation, and Immigrant Integration

《不均衡融合、網絡隔離與移民融合》
Linda Zhao

01

Frame Backfire: The Trouble with Civil Rights Appeals in the Contemporary United States

Fabiana Silva, Irene Bloemraad, Kim Voss

Many scholars and activists consider civil rights to be a powerful, effective way to frame diverse causes, but do civil rights claims actually resonate? Building on social movements, collective memory, and public opinion scholarship, we conceptualize civil rights claims in three non-mutually-exclusive ways: as a highly resonant “master frame” grounded in core American ideals of equal rights, as an appeal to the idealized memory of the Civil Rights Movement, and as racialized messaging that is likely to provoke backlash. Using these conceptualizations, we derive expectations about the effectiveness of civil rights claims across diverse issues, beneficiaries, and audiences, which we test using two large-scale survey experiments. Respondents viewed “civil rights” very positively in the abstract and broadly agreed about the meaning in both closed and open-ended survey responses: civil rights are about ensuring equal rights and treatment, rather than addressing material needs. Yet, surprisingly, framing contemporary problems—even unequal treatment—as civil rights violations reduced support for government intervention. Indeed, we find widespread frame backfire: civil rights framing was counterproductive across issues (material deprivation, unequal treatment), beneficiaries (African Americans, Mexican Americans, White Americans, undocumented Mexican immigrants), and audiences (liberals, conservatives, Whites, African Americans, Latinos). Given the consistently negative effects across respondents, these findings cannot be adequately explained as racialized backlash. Instead, we propose that civil rights claims evoke comparisons to the historic Civil Rights Movement, making contemporary hardships appear less significant and prompting unfavorable contrasts with idealized claims-making of the past. Our findings challenge assumptions that frames resonate when they align with audiences’ values or appeal to positive collective memories; indeed, invoking idealized memories risks undermining support for contemporary causes.

02

(Not) Getting What You Deserve: How Misrecognized Evaluators Reproduce Misrecognition in Peer Evaluations

Mabel Abraham，Tristan L. Botelho，James T. Carter

In most evaluation systems—such as those governing the allocation of prestigious awards—the evaluator’s primary task is to reward the highest quality candidates. However, these systems are imperfect; top performers may not be acknowledged and thus be underrecognized, and low performers may receive unwarranted recognition and thus be overrecognized. An important feature of many evaluation systems is that people alternate between being candidates and being evaluators. How does experiencing misrecognition as a candidate affect how people subsequently evaluate others? We develop novel theory that underrecognition and overrecognition lead people to reproduce those experiences when they are evaluators. Across three studies—a quasi-natural experiment and two preregistered, multistage experiments, we find that underrecognized evaluators are less likely to grant recognition to others—even to the highest-performing candidates. Conversely, overrecognized evaluators are more likely to grant rewards to others—even to the lowest-performing candidates. Whereas underrecognized evaluator behavior is driven by individuals’ perceptions that their experience was unfair, overrecognized evaluator behavior is driven by the informational cues people glean on how to evaluate others. Thus, in evaluation processes where people oscillate between being the evaluated and being the evaluator, we show how and why seemingly innocuous initial inefficiencies are reproduced in subsequent evaluations.

03

Making Sense of Honor Killings

Ozan Aksoy, Aron Szekely

Honor killings, which occur when women are perceived to have broken purity norms and bring “dishonor” to their family, pose profound moral and societal problems and underrecognized sociological puzzles. Given the immense cost, why do families murder their own daughter, niece, or cousin? Conversely, given the tragic consequences, why are norms broken in the first place? Drawing on accounts of honor killings, we characterize the key actors, actions, and incentives, and develop two interlinked theoretical models, one on norm-enforcement and another on norm-breaking. The former specifies the conditions under which honor norms should hold, the latter, counterintuitively, predicts that honor killings occur most frequently when honor norms are contested; not when they are strictest. Analyzing data from 24 countries and ~26,000 individuals and building a unique dataset of honor killings from Turkey, we find support for the hypotheses. Honor norms are stronger when laws offer leniency for honor killings, families’ loss of reputation is more consequential, and community cohesion is higher. Actual killings have an inverse-U-shaped link with the prevalence of honor norms. Our work advances the theoretical understanding of honor norms and killings and offers one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses of the factors influencing honor killings.

04

Essentializing Merit: Disability and Exclusion in Elite Private School Admissions

Estela B. Diaz, Lauren A. Rivera

Historically, elite schools have selected students in ways that reproduce advantages for dominant groups and exclude groups deemed undesirable. The specific outgroup in question has changed over time, but the underlying logic used to exclude these groups is often related to disability. Yet, disability as a social category has received minimal attention in discussions of elite reproduction. In this article, we draw on qualitative data collected from elite independent pre-K–12 schools to show that disability is indeed a salient basis of selection into elite educational environments, one that begins at the earliest moments of educational sorting: admission to elite early childhood programs. Through interviews with admissions personnel, we show that elite independent schools explicitly structure their admissions processes to identify—and exclude—children who are perceived as having or being at risk of developing any type of disability, regardless of impairment type or support needs. We argue that admissions practices at elite independent schools (1) serve as a form of social closure intended to restrict enrollment to young children perceived as able-bodied and neurotypical, and (2) represent a case of essentializing merit, in which elite gatekeepers construct merit as an intrinsic, rather than achieved, property of individuals.

05

Positioning Stories: Accounting for Insecure Work

Kathleen Griesbach

How do structural features of work shape workers’ interpretations of precarity, or the stories they tell? This article draws on 120 interviews with four groups of workers who confront temporal and spatial instability: Texas-based agricultural and oilfield workers and NYC-based adjunct instructors and delivery workers. I find that rather than adopting one dominant individualizing story, as previous research suggests, workers instead move between what I call positioning stories: narratives that interpret their work’s particular structural features. In doing so, workers combine individualistic and structural frames to cope with their positional uncertainty. Depending on the specific tempo and geography of their work, workers account for spatial instability in stories about sacrifice and self-improvement; they interpret temporal instability in stories about addiction and the burden of time passing without progress. Workers combine these with stories highlighting meaning and exploitation in their labor process. These findings reveal how structural precarity impedes a cohesive narrative by disrupting identities and life projects, but it also undermines the credibility of individualistic accounts. The resulting narrative fragmentation may inspire a wide range of responses, from resignation to contestation.

06

Uneven Mixing, Network Segregation, and Immigrant Integration

Linda Zhao

Classical theories of immigration posit that widespread intermixing between immigrants and natives is at the crux of immigrant integration, but do not specify what that looks like using network terminology. This study introduces the concept of uneven mixing, which captures variation in the number of intergroup ties that individuals hold in a network, as a strategy for assessing meaningful integration. A low level of uneven mixing represents more widespread intergroup ties, which is analogous to “blurred boundaries” that imply a less rigid sense of “us” versus “them.” In contrast, a high level of uneven mixing occurs when just a few individuals appear to cross over to the other side of otherwise unambiguous group boundaries. Using the case of classroom friendships, I show that native students embedded in more unevenly mixed networks are more closed off to immigrant cultures and view immigrants less favorably, even after accounting for their personal ties to immigrant classmates and the overall number of native–immigrant ties in the classroom. These patterns underscore the importance of considering the structure of intergroup ties when analyzing the relationship between networks and attitudinal integration. While this study focuses on immigrant integration, the approach used here is likely to advance knowledge on any kind of social integration that requires widespread intermixing across groups.

以上就是本期 JCS Focus 的全部內容啦！

期刊/趣文/熱點/漫談

學術路上，

JCS 陪你一起成長！

關于 JCS

《中國社會學學刊》（The Journal of Chinese Sociology）于2014年10月由中國社會科學院社會學研究所創辦。作為中國大陸第一本英文社會學學術期刊，JCS致力于為中國社會學者與國外同行的學術交流和合作打造國際一流的學術平臺。JCS由全球最大科技期刊出版集團施普林格·自然(Springer Nature)出版發行，由國內外頂尖社會學家組成強大編委會隊伍，采用雙向匿名評審方式和“開放獲取”(open access)出版模式。JCS已于2021年5月被ESCI收錄。2022年，JCS的CiteScore分值為2.0（Q2），在社科類別的262種期刊中排名第94位，位列同類期刊前36%。2023年，JCS在科睿唯安發布的2023年度《期刊引證報告》（JCR）中首次獲得影響因子并達到1.5（Q3）。

▉ 歡迎向《中國社會學學刊》投稿!!

Please consider submitting to

The Journal of Chinese Sociology!

▉ 官方網站：

https://journalofchinesesociology.springeropen.com