计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis

I have developed "tennis elbow" from lugging this book around the past four weeks, but it is worth the pain, the effort, and the aspirin. It is also worth the (relatively speaking) bargain price. Including appendixes, this book contains 894 pages of text. The entire panorama of the neural sciences is surveyed and examined, and it is comprehensive in its scope, from genomes to social behaviors. The editors explicitly state that the book is designed as "an introductory text for students of biology, behavior, and medicine," but it is hard to imagine any audience, interested in any fragment of neuroscience at any level of sophistication, that would not enjoy this book. The editors have done a masterful job of weaving together the biologic, the behavioral, and the clinical sciences into a single tapestry in which everyone from the molecular biologist to the practicing psychiatrist can find and appreciate his or

Principles of Neural Science

The 11th edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine welcomes Anthony Fauci to its editorial staff, in addition to more than 85 new contributors. While the organization of the book is similar to previous editions, major emphasis has been placed on disorders that affect multiple organ systems. Important advances in genetics, immunology, and oncology are emphasized. Many chapters of the book have been rewritten and describe major advances in internal medicine. Subjects that received only a paragraph or two of attention in previous editions are now covered in entire chapters. Among the chapters that have been extensively revised are the chapters on infections in the compromised host, on skin rashes in infections, on many of the viral infections, including cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, on sexually transmitted diseases, on diabetes mellitus, on disorders of bone and mineral metabolism, and on lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly. The major revisions in these chapters and many

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine

A Treatise on the Family. G. S. Becker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1981. Gary Becker is one of the most famous and influential economists of the second half of the 20th century, a fervent contributor to and expounder of the University of Chicago free-market philosophy, and winner of the 1992 Nobel Prize in economics. Although any book with the word "treatise" in its title is clearly intended to have an impact, one coming from someone as brilliant and controversial as Becker certainly had such a lofty goal. It has received many article-length reviews in several disciplines (Ben-Porath, 1982; Bergmann, 1995; Foster, 1993; Hannan, 1982), which is one measure of its scholarly importance, and yet its impact is, I think, less than it may have initially appeared, especially for scholars with substantive interests in the family. This book is, its title notwithstanding, more about economics and the economic approach to behavior than about the family. In the first sentence of the preface, Becker writes "In this book, I develop an economic or rational choice approach to the family." Lest anyone accuse him of focusing on traditional (i.e., material) economics topics, such as family income, poverty, and labor supply, he immediately emphasizes that those topics are not his focus. "My intent is more ambitious: to analyze marriage, births, divorce, division of labor in households, prestige, and other non-material behavior with the tools and framework developed for material behavior." Indeed, the book includes chapters on many of these issues. One chapter examines the principles of the efficient division of labor in households, three analyze marriage and divorce, three analyze various child-related issues (fertility and intergenerational mobility), and others focus on broader family issues, such as intrafamily resource allocation. His analysis is not, he believes, constrained by time or place. His intention is "to present a comprehensive analysis that is applicable, at least in part, to families in the past as well as the present, in primitive as well as modern societies, and in Eastern as well as Western cultures." His tone is profoundly conservative and utterly skeptical of any constructive role for government programs. There is a clear sense of how much better things were in the old days of a genderbased division of labor and low market-work rates for married women. Indeed, Becker is ready and able to show in Chapter 2 that such a state of affairs was efficient and induced not by market or societal discrimination (although he allows that it might exist) but by small underlying household productivity differences that arise primarily from what he refers to as "complementarities" between caring for young children while carrying another to term. Most family scholars would probably find that an unconvincingly simple explanation for a profound and complex phenomenon. What, then, is the salient contribution of Treatise on the Family? It is not literally the idea that economics could be applied to the nonmarket sector and to family life because Becker had already established that with considerable success and influence. At its core, microeconomics is simple, characterized by a belief in the importance of prices and markets, the role of self-interested or rational behavior, and, somewhat less centrally, the stability of preferences. It was Becker's singular and invaluable contribution to appreciate that the behaviors potentially amenable to the economic approach were not limited to phenomenon with explicit monetary prices and formal markets. Indeed, during the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, he did undeniably important and pioneering work extending the domain of economics to such topics as labor market discrimination, fertility, crime, human capital, household production, and the allocation of time. Nor is Becker's contribution the detailed analyses themselves. Many of them are, frankly, odd, idiosyncratic, and off-putting. …

A Treatise on the Family

https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa54196/Download/54196__17493__47815979be224dde9a7b3f9b037ce7ec.pdf

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science.

Married couples who began their relationship by cohabiting appear to face an increased risk of marital dissolution, which may be due to self-selection of more dissolution-prone individuals into cohabitation before marriage. This paper uses newly developed econometric methods to explicitly address the endogeneity of cohabitation before marriage in the hazard of marital disruption by allowing the unobserved heterogeneity components to be correlated across the decisions to cohabit and to end a marriage. These methods are applied to data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. We find significant heterogeneity in both cohabitation and marriage disruption, and discover evidence of self-selection into cohabitation.

Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-Selection?"

Children constitute the prime example of "marital-specific capital," a resource worth substantially more inside a marriage than outside it. This article examines the effect of children on marital stability, using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, and tests the propositions that (1)children enhance marital stability, (2) younger children increase stability more than older children, and (3) under some circumstances children have no stabilizing effect or even increase chances that their parents' marriage will end. A proportional hazards model in continuous time is estimated and the modified to accommodate key features of the data. The results indicate that fistborn children increase the stability of marriage through their preschool years. Other children increase marital stability only when they are very young. Older children and children born before marriage significantly increase chances of disruption. The initially stabilizing and later destabilizing effects of children combine over the course ...

/pdf/children-and-marital-disruption-1un97egas7.pdf

Children and Marital Disruption

We attempt to integrate, elaborate, and test competing theories of why religious participation increases with age during young adulthood. We reconceptualize age and family formation as interacting causes of religious participation rather than competing explanations of it. We expand the concept offamily formation to include divorce, cohabitation, and dissolution of cohabitational relationships. We distinguish attitudes toward the family from family formation behavior. We analyze data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972, which traces church membership to age 32. Our results show that the effect of children on church membership varies with the combination of the children's and parent's ages. We find separate effects of family formation behavior and attitudes toward the family. Cohabitation, divorce, and dissolution of cohabitational unions all affect membership probability, but these effects vary with age and are often differentfor men and women. n most religious traditions practiced in the United States, religious values and participation in religious organizations are deeply intertwined with values and attitudes that encourage marriage and parenthood. Most formal religious dogmas promote the establishment and maintenance of family relationships. Organized religions offer institutionalized moral support for love, intimacy, and childbearing in the context of religiously sanctioned marriage (D'Antonio 1983, 1985;

Religious participation in early adulthood: age and family life cycle effects on church membership*

This commentary presents a socioeconomic and demographic view of the research literature on the benefits of marriage and religious participation in the United States. We compare religion and marriage as social institutions, both clearly on everyone’s short list of “most important institutions.” Marriage is an either–or status. But marital unions differ in a multitude of ways, including the characteristics, such as education, earnings, religion, and cultural background, of each of the partners, and the homogamy of their match on these characteristics. Similarly, religion has multiple aspects. These include religious affiliation, a particular set of theological beliefs and practices, and religiosity. Religiosity may be manifested in various levels and forms of religious participation (attendance at religious services within a congregation, family observance, individual devotion) and in terms of the salience of religion, that is, the importance of religious beliefs as a guide for one’s life. Our focus here is on broad comparisons between marriage (being married versus not) and religiosity (having some involvement in religious activities versus not). We argue that both marriage and religiosity generally have far-reaching, positive effects; that they influence similar domains of life; and that there are important parallels in the pathways through which each achieves these outcomes. Where applicable, we refer to other dimensions of marriage and religion, including the quality of the marital relationship and the type of religious affiliation.

We begin with a comparison of the effects associated with marriage and involvement in religious activities, based on a literature review, followed by a comparison of the major channels through which each operates. We then discuss qualifications and important exceptions to the general conclusion that marriage and religious involvement have beneficial effects. We conclude with a consideration of the intersection between marriage and religion and suggestions for future research.

/pdf/the-benefits-from-marriage-and-religion-in-the-united-states-ntqutwxxjy.pdf

The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis.

Previous research has identified social isolation as a risk factor for physical and mental health problems (e.g., Berkman, 1995; Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2003; Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, & Thisted, 2006; House, 2001). Socially disconnected and lonely individuals tend to suffer higher rates of morbidity and mortality (Taylor, Repetti, & Seeman, 1997; Thoits, 1995) as well as infection (Cohen, Doyle, Skoner, Rabin, & Gwaltney, 1997; Pressman et al., 2005), depression (Heikkinen & Kauppinen, 2004), and cognitive decline (Wilson et al., 2007). The mere presence of another individual can alleviate stress (Cohen & Williamson, 1991; Thoits), whereas feelings of loneliness may exacerbate the physiological effects of stress, resulting in elevated cortisol levels (Hawkley, Burleson, Berntson, & Cacioppo, 2003; Steptoe, Owen, Kunz-Ebrecht, & Brydon, 2004) and blood pressure (Hawkley et al).

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the development of scales capturing social disconnectedness and perceived isolation using data from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP). We use procedures of scale construction to combine multiple indicators of isolation into a scale assessing social disconnectedness and a scale capturing perceived isolation. We then examine the relationship between disconnectedness and perceived isolation and assess their distributions across age, gender, and self-rated health among older adults. Our aim is not to present these scales as definitive measures but to encourage further work toward elucidating the concept, causes, and consequences of social isolation among older adults.

Social Isolation Among Older Adults
The examination of social isolation among older adults is particularly important for a number of reasons. First, there is some evidence that social isolation may become more common with increasing age. Older adults tend to have smaller social networks (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006) and are more likely to experience feelings of loneliness (Dykstra, van Tilburg, & de Jong Gierveld, 2005). This may be due, in part, to older adults’ experiences of bereavement and their greater likelihood of living alone (Kramarow, 1995; Li & Ferraro, 2005). The correspondence of these conditions has led to the assumption that diminishing social networks result in lower levels of perceived social support and increased loneliness.

However, recent research suggests that changes across the life course in social connectedness and satisfaction may be heterogeneous. For example, data from NSHAP indicate that the oldest old have greater participation than the young old (Cornwell, Laumann, & Schumm, 2008), and other research suggests that loneliness may peak in middle age (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). Accordingly, social connectedness, support, and loneliness may not be inextricably linked, especially among older adults. In the face of shrinking social networks, older adults may develop closer relationships and shift expectations so that decreasing connectedness does not necessarily result in the perception of isolation (Lang & Carstensen, 1994; Schnittker, 2007).

Finally, to the extent that social isolation is associated with worse health, it may pose a particularly severe risk for older adults. Older adults are more likely to experience bereavement and develop health problems, both of which may increase their need for social support and companionship. As a result, social isolation may be particularly deleterious for older adults. Indeed, research indicates that older adults who experience one or another aspect of isolation have been found to be at greater risk for all-cause mortality, increased morbidity, depression, and cognitive decline (Brummett et al., 2001; Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2003; House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Sherbourne, Meredith, Rogers, & Ware, 1992; Tomaka, Thompson, & Palacios, 2006).


Measuring Social Isolation
The variety of indicators of isolation and loneliness used across research in different disciplines is both a blessing and a curse. This work has captured an enormous number of facets of individuals’ everyday social worlds. Indicators of isolation in previous research include living alone (Dean, Kolody, Wood, & Matt, 1992; Hughes & Gove, 1981; Waite & Hughes, 1999), being unmarried (Lillard & Waite, 1995; Ross, 1995), having a small social network (Berkman & Syme, 1979; Seeman, Berkman, Blazer, & Rowe, 1994), infrequent contact with network members (Brummett et al., 2001), a lack of social network diversity (Barefoot, Gronbaek, Jensen, Schnohr, & Prescott, 2005), a perceived lack of social support (Blazer, 1982; Krause, 1987; Lin, Ye, & Ensel, 1999; Wethington & Kessler, 1986), low participation in social activities (Benjamins, 2004; Ellison & George, 1994; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001), emotionally distant relationships (Uno, Uchino, & Smith, 2002), and feelings of loneliness or not belonging (Cacioppo et al., 2006; Hawkley et al., 2003). However, most of this work has been limited to the examination of only one or two indicators of isolation (or connectedness), or it has focused on only one conceptual area, such as support, participation, or loneliness. As a result, it is difficult to discern whether multiple features of isolation might combine to create particularly severe situations of social isolation among the oldest old. It is also unclear whether feelings of loneliness and a lack of social support do, in fact, follow the loss of social network ties or if more subjective appraisals of isolation are separate from objective features of isolation.

In efforts to consolidate multiple measures of social isolation, several authors have previously identified central components of isolation. For example, van Baarsen, Snijders, Smit, and van Duijn (2001) distinguish between social loneliness, as the lack of integration and companionship, and emotional loneliness, as the lack of an attachment figure. De Jong Gierveld and Hagestad (2006) similarly contrast isolation (as the opposite of integration) with loneliness (as the opposite of embeddedness). Following these distinctions and building from the disciplinary approaches of both sociology and psychology, we suggest two distinct aspects of social isolation. Social disconnectedness can be characterized by a lack of contact with others and indicated by situational factors, such as a small social network, infrequent interaction, and a lack of participation in social activities and groups. Perceived isolation, on the other hand, can be characterized by the subjective experience of a shortfall in one’s social resources such as companionship and support. Individuals who are socially disconnected may have small social networks, interact with network members infrequently, and rarely participate in social activities. On the other hand, individuals who perceive themselves to be isolated may report feelings of loneliness and perceive a lack of social support from friends and family members.

Social disconnectedness and perceived isolation are related, but we hypothesize that they are distinct. Some research indicates, for example, that feelings of loneliness are responsive to changes in network size, but other findings indicate only a modest correlation between disconnectedness and perceived isolation (Hawkley et al., 2003; Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2004; Schnittker, 2007). Although physical separation from others and feelings of loneliness may go hand-in-hand for some individuals, infrequent social interaction may not lead to feelings of loneliness for others. Alternatively, people who are socially active and embedded within an expansive social network may feel socially isolated if their relationships lack emotional closeness and support.

/pdf/measuring-social-isolation-among-older-adults-using-multiple-4y1j5wrbbz.pdf

Linda J. Waite

Papers

Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-Selection?"

Children and Marital Disruption

Religious participation in early adulthood: age and family life cycle effects on church membership*

The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis.

Measuring Social Isolation Among Older Adults Using Multiple Indicators From the NSHAP Study