Presents papers which were discussed at the Arden House Conference—a conference held to establish a working relationship between sociologists at the Russell Sage Foundation and journalists of the Graduate School of Journalism of Columbia University. Both behavioral science and journalism have for a long time been concerned with some of the same major national social problems—juvenile delinquency, urban problems, race and minority group relations, international tensions, and labor relations. These papers touch on some of the barriers to communication and point to possible ways of breaking through those barriers.

FREDERICK T. C. YU is professor and director of research at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Ben H. Bagdikian, Leo Bogart, Edgar F. Borgatta, Marvin Bressler, John Mack Carter, Wayne A. Danielson, W. Phillips Davison, Emmett Dedmon, Eli Ginzberg, Ernest Havemann, Herbert H. Hyman, Robert L. Jones, Alfred J. Kahn, Joseph T. Klapper, Melvin L. Kohn, Daniel Lerner, Ronald Lippitt, John W. Riley Jr., Earl Ubell, Richard C. Wald, Stanton Wheeler, Robin M. Williams Jr., and Frederick T. C. Yu

On Record provides descriptive accounts of record keeping in a variety of important organizations: schools, from elementary to graduate school; consumer credit agencies, general business organizations, and life insurance companies; the military and security agencies; the Census Bureau and the Social Security Administration; public welfare agencies, juvenile courts, and mental hospitals. It also examines the legal status of records. The authors pose questions such as the following: Who determines what records are kept? Who has access to the records?

STANTON WHEELER is professor of law and sociology at Yale University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Rodolfo Alvarez, Pierce Baker, Ivar Berg, Nancy Bordier, David Caplovitz, Burton R. Clark, Kai T. Erikson, Daniel E. Gilbertson, Abraham S. Goldstein, David A. Goslin, Adwin M. Lemert, Roger M. Lemert, Roger W. Little, Wilbert E. Moore, Jesse Orlansky, H. Laurence Ross, James Rule, James Salvate, Joseph Steinberg, Stanton Wheeler, Don H. Zimmerman.

Policy makers, as well as the general public, are often unaware of social science research until a story about it appears in the national media. Even in official Washington, a staffer’s report on social research may go unnoticed while a report in the Washington Post receives immediate attention.

This study takes a systematic and revealing look at social science reporting. How do journalists hear about social science, and why do they select certain stories to cover and not others? How do journalistic standards for selection compare with social scientists’ own judgments of merit? How do reporters attempt to ensure accuracy, and how freely do they introduce their own interpretations of social science findings? How satisfied are social scientists with the selection and accuracy of social science news?

In Part I, Carol H. Weiss addresses these questions on the basis of personal interviews with social scientists and the journalists who wrote about their work. Part II, by Eleanor Singer, is based on an analysis of media content itself, and compares social science reporting over time (between 1970 and 1982) and across media (newspapers, newsmagazines, television). These two complementary perspectives combine to produce a thorough, realistic assessment of the way social science moves out of the academy and into the world of news.

CAROL H. WEISS is professor in the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University.

ELEANOR SINGER is senior research scholar in the Center for the Social Sciences at Columbia University.

Scientific progress often begins with the difficult task of preparing informed, conclusive reviews of existing research. Since the 1970s, the traditional "subjective" approach to research reviewing in the social sciences has been challenged by a statistical alternative known as meta-analysis. Meta-analysis provides a principled method of distilling reliable generalizations from previous studies on a single topic, thereby providing a quantitative and objective background for future research.

The Future of Meta-Analysis brings together expert researchers for an in-depth examination of this new methodology—not to promote a consensus view but rather to explore from several perspectives the theories, tensions, and concerns of meta-analysis, and to illustrate through concrete examples the rationale behind meta-analytic decisions.

In a meta-analysis prepared especially for this volume, a statistician and a psychologist review the existing literature on aphasia treatment. In a second study, experts analyze six still-unpublished meta-analyses sponsored by the National Institute of Education to investigate the effects of school desegregation on the academic achievement of black children. This unique case study approach provides valuable discussion of the process of meta-analysis and of the current implications of meta-analysis for policy assessment.

Prepared under the auspices of the National Research Council, The Future of Meta-Analysis presents a forum for leaders in this rapidly evolving field to discuss salient conceptual and technical issues and to offer a new theoretical framework, further methodological guidance, and statistical innovations that anticipate a future in which meta-analysis will play an even more effective and valuable role in social science research.

KENNETH W. WACHTER is professor of demography and statistics at the University of California, Berkeley.

MIRON L. STRAF is director of the Committee on National Statistics for the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

CONTRIBUTORS: Kenneth W. Wachter, Miron L. Straf, Ingram Olkin, Larry V. Hedges, Joel B. Greenhouse, Davida Fromm, Satish Iyengar, Mary Amanda Dew, Audrey L. Holland, Robert E. Kass, Nan M. Laird, Jeffrey M. Schneider, Linda Ingram, S. James Press, Harris M. Cooper, David S. Cordray, Robert Rosenthal, Norman M. Bradburn, Fredric M. Wolf, Donald B. Rubin, and Frederick Mosteller.

Philosophers have long tussled over whether moral judgments are the products of logical reasoning or simply emotional reactions. From Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility to the debates of modern psychologists, the question of whether feeling or sober rationality is the better guide to decision making has been a source of controversy. In Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? Kathleen Vohs, Roy Baumeister, and George Loewenstein lead a group of prominent psychologists and economists in exploring the empirical evidence on how emotions shape judgments and choices.

Researchers on emotion and cognition have staked out many extreme positions: viewing emotions as either the driving force behind cognition or its side effect, either an impediment to sound judgment or a guide to wise decisions. The contributors to Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? provide a richer perspective, exploring the circumstances that shape whether emotions play a harmful or helpful role in decisions. Roy Baumeister, C. Nathan DeWall, and Liqing Zhang show that while an individual’s current emotional state can lead to hasty decisions and self-destructive behavior, anticipating future emotional outcomes can be a helpful guide to making sensible decisions. Eduardo Andrade and Joel Cohen find that a positive mood can negatively affect people’s willingness to act altruistically. Happy people, when made aware of risks associated with altruistic acts, become wary of jeopardizing their own well-being. Benoît Monin, David Pizarro, and Jennifer Beer find that whether emotion or reason matters more in moral evaluation depends on the specific issue in question. Individual characteristics often mediate the effect of emotions on decisions. Catherine Rawn, Nicole Mead, Peter Kerkhof, and Kathleen Vohs find that whether an individual makes a decision based on emotion depends both on the type of decision in question and the individual’s level of self-esteem. And Quinn Kennedy and Mara Mather show that the elderly are better able to regulate their emotions, having learned from experience to anticipate the emotional consequences of their behavior.

Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? represents a significant advance toward a comprehensive theory of emotions and cognition that accounts for the nuances of the mental processes involved. This landmark book will be a stimulus to scholarly debates as well as an informative guide to everyday decisions.

KATHLEEN D. VOHS is the McKnight Land-Grant Professor and assistant professor in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota.

ROY F. BAUMEISTER is the Francis Eppes Eminent Scholar and professor of psychology at Florida State University.

GEORGE LOEWENSTEIN is the Herbert A. Simon Professor of Economics and Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Christopher J. Anderson, Eduardo B. Andrade, Roy F. Baumeister, Jennifer S. Beer, Joel B. Cohen, C. Nathan DeWall, Matthew T. Gailliot, Karen Gasper, Lorenz Goette, David Huffman, Linda M. Isbell, Quinn Kennedy, Peter Kerkhof, Jonathan Levav, Debra Lieberman, George Loewenstein, Mara Mather, Nicole L. Mead, Benoît Monin, Robert Oum, David A. Pizarro, Catherine D. Rawn, Dianne M. Tice, Jennifer L. Trujillo, Kathleen D. Vohs, Piotr Winkielman, John M. Zelenski, and Liqing Zhang
 

In January 1980 a panel of distinguished social scientists and statisticians assembled at the National Academy of Sciences to begin a thorough review of the uses, reliability, and validity of surveys purporting to measure such subjective phenomena as attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and preferences. This review was prompted not only by the widespread use of survey results in both academic and non-academic settings, but also by a proliferation of apparent discrepancies in allegedly equivalent measurements and by growing public concern over the value of such measurements.

This two-volume report of the panel’s findings is certain to become one of the standard works in the field of survey measurement. Volume I summarizes the state of the art of surveying subjective phenomena, evaluates contemporary measurement programs, examines the uses and abuses of such surveys, and candidly assesses the problems affecting them. The panel also offers strategies for improving the quality and usefulness of subjective survey data. In volume II, individual panel members and other experts explore in greater depth particular theoretical and empirical topics relevant to the panel’s conclusions.

For social scientists and policymakers who conduct, analyze, and rely on surveys of the national state of mind, this comprehensive and current review will be an invaluable resource.

CHARLES F. TURNER is professor of Applied Social Research at the City University of New York.

ELIZABETH MARTIN is research associate at the National Research Council.

CONTRIBUTORS: Robert P. Abelson, Barbara A. Bailar, Marian Ballard, Theresa J. Demaio, Otis Dudley Duncan, Baruch Fischhoff, Lester R. Frankel, William H. Kruskal, Michael B. Mackuen, Catherine Marsch, Elizabeth Martin, Sara B. Nerlove, Howard Schuman, Tom W. Smith, Charles F. Turner

In a time when the American family has undergone dramatic evolution, change among African Americans has been particularly rapid and acute. African Americans now marry later than any other major ethnic group, and while in earlier decades nearly 95 percent of black women eventually married, today 30 percent are expected to remain single. The black divorcee rate has increased nearly five-fold over the last thirty years, and is double the rate of the general population. The result, according to The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans, is a greater share of family responsibilities being borne by women, an increased vulnerability to poverty and violence, and an erosion of community ties.

The original, often controversial, research presented in this book links marital decline to a pivotal drop in the pool of marriageable black males. Increased joblessness has robbed many black men of their economic viability, rendering them not only less desirable as mates, but also less inclined to take on the responsibility of marriage. Higher death rates resulting from disease, poor health care, and violent crime, as well as evergrowing incarceration rates, have further depleted the male population. Editors M. Belinda Tucker and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan and the contributors take a hard look at the effects of chronic economic instability and cultural attitudes toward the male role as family provider. Their cogent historical analyses suggest that the influence of external circumstances over marriage preferences stems in large part from the profoundly damaging experience of slavery.

This book firmly positions declining marriage within an ominous cycle of economic and social erosion. The authors propose policies for relieving the problems associated the changing marital behavior, focusing on support for single parent families, public education, and increased employment for African American men.

M. BELINDA TUCKER is associate professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles and faculty associate of the Center for Afro-American Studies.

CLAUDIA MITCHELL-KERNAN is vice chancellor for academic affairs, dean of the graduate division, and professor of anthropology and of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles.

CONTRIBUTORS: Phillip J. Bowman, Lynn C. Burbridge, Sheldon Danziger, William A. Darity Jr., Elizabeth Douvan, Mark A. Fossett, Shirley J. Hatchett, David M. Heer, James S. Jackson, K. Jill Kiecolt, Marilyn Krogh, Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, Hector F. Myers, Samuel L. Myers Jr., Melvin L. Oliver, Robert J. Sampson, Robert Schoen, A. Wade Smith, Brenda Stevenson, Mark Testa, M. Belinda Tucker, and Joseph Veroff

This bold and lively essay is one of those rarest of intellectual achievements, a big small book. In its short length are condensed enormous erudition and impressive analytical scope. With verve and self-assurance, it addresses a broad, central question: How can we improve our understanding of the large-scale processes and structures that transformed the world of the nineteenth century and are transforming our world today?

Tilly contends that twentieth-century social theories have been encumbered by a nineteenth century heritage of “pernicious postulates.” He subjects each misleading belief to rigorous criticism, challenging many standard social science paradigms and methodologies. As an alternative to those timeless, placeless models of social change and organization, Tilly argues convincingly for a program of concrete, historically grounded analysis and systematic comparison.

To illustrate the strategies available for such research, Tilly assesses the works of several major practitioners of comparative historical analysis, making skillful use of this selective review to offer his own speculative, often unconventional accounts of our recent past.

Historically oriented social scientists will welcome this provocative essay and its wide-ranging agenda for comparative historical research. Other social scientists, their graduate and undergraduate students, and even the interested general reader will find this new work by a major scholar stimulating and eminently readable.

This is the second of five volumes commissioned by the Russell Sage Foundation to mark its seventy-fifth anniversary.

"In this short, brilliant book Tilly suggests a way to think about theories of historical social change....This book should find attentive readers both in undergraduate courses and in graduate seminars. It should also find appreciative readers, for Tilly is a writer as well as a scholar." —Choice

CHARLES TILLY is at the New School for Social Research.

Standard economic theory is built on the assumption that human beings act rationally in their own self interest. But if rationality is such a reliable factor, why do economic models so often fail to predict market behavior accurately? According to Richard Thaler, the shortcomings of the standard approach arise from its failure to take into account systematic mental biases that color all human judgements and decisions. Economics assumes behavior is consistently rational, when it is, in fact, only partially, or quasi-rational.

The papers collected in Quasi-Rational Economics represent a significant sampling of this innovative approach, written by a leader in the field along with co-authors Thomas Russell, H. M. Shefrin, Daniel Kahneman, Jack Knetsch, Werner De Bondt, Eric Johnson, Charles Lee, and Andrei Shleifer. Thaler and his colleagues challenge established economic theories in such areas as consumer choice and financial markets, offering empirical evidence and alternate models based on behavioral research about how economic decisions are actually made.

Quasi-Rational Economics deals with a number of intriguing questions. Why do people have trouble ignoring sunk costs and recognizing opportunity costs? How do people’s preferences for already endowed possessions suppress trading volume and keep markets from clearing? What are the effects on market behavior of consumer attitudes about fairness? How do people’s mental accounting procedures lead them to behave in economically inconsistent ways? Why do investors’ tendencies to overreact to past trends cause losing firms to outperform winners in the stock market?

In offering answers to these questions, Quasi-Rational Economics provides an essential introduction to a new field. It mounts a trenchant critique of current practice in economics and calls for richer, more realistic approaches to formulating and testing economic theory. More than just a call for reform, this book provides numerous illustrations of how the call can be answered.

"Richard Thaler's book offers great evidence for the importance of quasi rational behavior in economic settings, thus stimulating the reader. Its broad coverage makes an interesting introduction to a new field, as well as informing about further applications and methods." —Kyklos

RICHARD H. THALER is Henrietta Johnson Louis Professor of Economics and director of the Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research, Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University. He is research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Modern financial markets offer the real world's best approximation to the idealized price auction market envisioned in economic theory. Nevertheless, as the increasingly exquisite and detailed financial data demonstrate, financial markets often fail to behave as they should if trading were truly dominated by the fully rational investors that populate financial theories.

These markets anomalies have spawned a new approach to finance, one which as editor Richard Thaler puts it, "entertains the possibility that some agents in the economy behave less than fully rationally some of the time." Advances in Behavioral Finance collects together twenty-one recent articles that illustrate the power of this approach. These papers demonstrate how specific departures from fully rational decision making by individual market agents can provide explanations of otherwise puzzling market phenomena.

To take several examples, Werner De Bondt and Thaler find an explanation for superior price performance of firms with poor recent earnings histories in the tendencies of investors to overreact to recent information. Richard Roll traces the negative effects of corporate takeovers on the stock prices of the acquiring firms to the overconfidence of managers, who fail to recognize the contributions of chance to their past successes. Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny show how the difficulty of establishing a reliable reputation for correctly assessing the value of long term capital projects can lead investment analysis, and hence corporate managers, to focus myopically on short term returns.

As a testing ground for assessing the empirical accuracy of behavioral theories, the successful studies in this landmark collection reach beyond the world of finance to suggest, very powerfully, the importance of pursuing behavioral approaches to other areas of economic life. Advances in Behavioral Finance is a solid beachhead for behavioral work in the financial arena and a clear promise of wider application for behavioral economics in the future.

RICHARD H. THALER is Henrietta Johnson Louis Professor of Economics, and director of the Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research, Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Lawrence M. Ausubel, Victor L. Bernard, Fischer Black, Navin Chopra, David M. Cutler, Werner F. M. De Bondt, J. Bradford De Long, Jeffrey A. Frankel, Kenneth R. French, Kenneth A. Froot, Josef Lakonishok, Charles M. C. Lee, James M. Poterba, Jay R. Ritter, Richard Roll, Hersh M. Shefrin, Robert J. Shiller, Andrei Shleifer, Meir Statman, Jeremy Stein, Lawrence H. Summers, Richard H. Thaler, Robert W. Vishny, and Robert J. Waldmann