Purpose - The chapter revisits and updates an earlier analysis to assess the extent to which sociological social psychology's treatment of race has changed since 2000, and evaluates the degree to which issues of intersectionality and sexuality are engaged in social psychological scholarship.Design/methodology/approach - The chapter provides a content analysis of articles published between 2000 and 2012 in Social Psychology Quarterly, a leading journal in sociological social psychology, and of chapters published in two influential handbooks in social psychology.Findings - It documents a notable increase in the percentage of articles in Social Psychology Quarterly in which race/ethnicity is referred to, included in the analysis, or seriously engaged. Patterns vary by methodological approach used in these articles. Social psychological attention to intersectionality and sexuality, as measured by the percentage of articles that broach these topics, is minimal.Research limitations/implications - This chapter restricts its analysis to the leading journal in sociological social psychology, but still demonstrates that there is potential for greater movement toward the incorporation of race/ethnicity, intersectionality, and sexuality in social psychological scholarship.Originality/value - It calls attention to core topics in sociology that would benefit from greater scholarly engagement by social psychologists.

ABSTRACT The authors analyzed the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) national data set to investigate gender differences in ability group placement in American kindergartens. They found that in kindergarten, within-class ability grouping was widely used for reading instruction, with boys being underrepresented in high-achieving reading groups and overrepresented in low-achieving ones. Gender differences in reading group placement were consistent across classrooms and were explained by student-level characteristics. Boys’ underrepresentation in high reading groups was explained by their lower reading skills at kindergarten entry, as measured by the reading test scores available in the ECLS-K. By contrast, boys’ overrepresentation in low reading groups was only partially explained by their lower test scores. Compared with girls of similar social background and reading test scores, boys continued to have higher chances of placement into a low reading group. This remaining gender difference was explained by the lower teacher evaluations of boys’ reading skills and approaches to learning. Boys’ disadvantages in reading group placement at school entry raise concern over their further academic success.

Building upon insights generated by social psychological scholarship on equity, emotions, and identity, we use the General Social Survey (1996) Modules on Emotion and Gender and the National Survey of Family and Households (1992—1994) to investigate the relationship between perceived inequity in the household division of labor and emotion. These surveys enable us to assess the degree to which patterns identified in short-term laboratory studies of relative strangers are generalizable to enduring relationships among intimates. We move beyond existing studies that link inequity in the home with depression by incorporating a broader scope of emotions and further by distinguishing between underbenefiting and overbenefiting—i.e., doing what one considers more or less than one’s fair share—and by examining these processes for women and men. We find general support for principles of equity theory: That is, emotions are closely tied to perceived inequity in the division of household labor. Guided by insights from Kemper’s structural interactional theory of emotion and affect control theory, we show that this pattern differs by specific emotions, the direction of the inequity, and the sex of the perceiver. Implications for understanding emotion, equity theory, and family are then elaborated.

Background This investigation was sparked by research findings on secondary education showing school segregation to be closely associated with homogeneous grouping practices, such as tracking and between-class ability grouping. Research Design We conduct secondary analyses of national data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K). Objectives Using these data, we investigate the degree to which the racial and ethnic composition of schools is associated with use of ability grouping practices as early as kindergarten. We focus on within-class ability grouping for reading instruction because it is the most common form of homogeneous grouping for the early grades. Results and Conclusions We find that this form of grouping is practiced by a majority of kindergarten teachers and schools, although frequency of use is quite varied, and some teachers and schools use it only sporadically. The most intensive use of within-class ability grouping exists in schools that serve high proportions of minority students and in schools with high variability in students’ reading readiness. The association between student body composition and use of this instructional practice remains even after variability in student academic skills and other structural characteristics of schools are accounted for. Schools serving primarily minority students that use within-class ability grouping have higher average gains in reading achievement by the end of the school year than comparable schools that do not use this form of grouping. Use of this instructional practice is not associated with increases in average achievement gain scores for schools serving students of diverse or primarily White backgrounds. Our findings provide the foundation for further studies of the structural, cultural, and political features of schools associated with the use of ability grouping at the onset of schooling.

Americans now live in a diversity of living arrangements—more so than ever before. Whether or not these living arrangements are counted as family can have direct consequences for people’s lives. Families enjoy many rights and privileges—both formal and informal—that are not provided to others. Understanding the boundaries that Americans make between “families” and “nonfamilies” tells us who is seen as deserving of these rights and privileges. In this article, Brian Powell discusses results of a U.S.-based study in which more than 2000 adults were interviewed about their stances regarding same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, samesex marriage, and, most importantly, what counts as family. In examining how Americans are making sense of, and in some cases struggling with, changes in living arrangements in the United States, Powell makes predictions regarding the likely changes in Americans’ definitions over the next decade.

Since 2000, in the USA Republican voting states have been called red and the Democrat ones called blue. We explore whether or not the cultural stereotype that red states harbour more virtuous constituents than blue states has merit. We relate the extent to which electoral votes were cast for George Bush during the 2004 election, a variable that we specify as the degree of redness, to a scale of moral conduct at the state level. This scale is a composite of indicators of socially disapproved behaviours that conservatives in particular are more concerned about than are liberals in the USA. The scale is an equally weighted sum of ranks on 13 aggregated indicators of behaviours. Our scale includes activities that are most strongly advocated and campaigned against by conservatives and covers sexual behaviour, substance abuse, family breakdown, and crime rates. Data are extracted from a variety of sources in 2000. We examine the untested presumption that inhabitants of red states are more moral than those in blue states, as some commonly held stereotypes would lead us to believe. No matter how the analysis is conducted, we reach the same inescapable conclusion. The red state/ blue state dichotomy just does not pan out empirically.

We review the debate over behavior, gender and classroom placement in ability groups for kindergartners. Using vignettes we vary children’s gender in three ways; male, female, or unspecified gender and also describe them as behaving well, average, or misbehaving. Our aim is to probe how much gender and behavior matter with respect to mock reading group placement. The design allows us to see if depicted behavior affects placement when every vignette child is described as possessing the same, average ability. After reading vignettes that vary gender and behavior, but not ability, respondents are directed to assign the portrayed child to a high, medium or low reading group. While depicted behavior strongly affects reading group placement, gender is not a significant predictor.