Correlation between cognitive ability and educational attainment weakens over birth cohorts

Educational attainment is a key indicator of status and opportunity in meritocratic societies. However, it is unclear how educational expansion has affected the link between cognitive abilities and educational attainment. As a result, this study examines the correlation between cognitive ability and educational attainment across male birth cohorts in Norway. Utilizing administrative register data covering more than four decades, we investigate multiple measures of educational attainment and their connection to cognitive abilities. Our findings reveal a consistent decline in the correlation over time. These findings question the assumed shift towards meritocracy in educational systems and highlight a more complex relationship between cognitive ability and educational attainment.

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

Worlds of distributive justice preferences: Individual- and country-level profiles of support for equality, equity and need

Based on welfare regime theory, scholars have tried to understand cross-national differences in solidarity by constructing 'worlds of welfare attitudes'. Most studies use a variable-centred logic to examine quantitative differences in support for the delivery of welfare provisions. Yet, the worlds of attitudes approach implies that qualitatively distinct logics of social justice exist. Thus, an alternative person-centred approach is needed that uncovers clusters of beliefs about the preferred type of welfare system. This article assesses individual- and country-level profiles of preferences for the principles of equality, equity and need to dissect worlds of distributive justice preferences. Multilevel latent profile analysis is applied to European Social Survey data (2018/2019). Results reveal four individual profiles that each combine distinct preferences for equality, equity and need. On the basis of the distribution of these individual profiles, three country profiles or worlds of distributive justice preferences are identified, which are not institutionally structured.

Attitudes Toward Asylum Policy in a Divided Europe: Diverging Contexts, Diverging Attitudes?

The large inflow of asylum-seekers in recent years has heralded a diversification in adopted asylum policies across European societies. Although a growing body of research has addressed these versatile approaches and their implications for the European integration project, insight into the social basis of these restrictive or open asylum policies remains underdeveloped. Hence, the current study provides detailed insight into public preferences for asylum policies and offers a new understanding of how these attitudes are affected by diverging socio-economic realities across Europe. In addition, this paper considers the role of individual factors that coincide with publicly adopted frames in contemporary asylum debates. In particular, to explain how contextual differences reflect on opinion climates, the impacts of the policy, economic, and migratory context are studied. On the individual-level, we focus on threat perception and human values, which represent humanitarian, economic, and cultural frames. To explore these relations, data on 20 countries from the European Social Survey Round 8 (2016) are analyzed through a multilevel structural equation modeling approach. Results indicate that, on the contextual-level, only unemployment rates have a significant impact and, rather surprisingly, lower unemployment rates provoke a more negative opinion climate. Yet, this relationship seems to be largely driven by some specific countries that are characterized by large unemployment rates and relatively positive opinion climates simultaneously. The migratory and policy context, on the other hand, do not influence attitudes toward asylum policy. This indicates that it is not necessarily the countries facing the largest inflow of asylum-seekers or issuing the most positive decisions on asylum applications that have the most restrictive opinion climates. As shown by the important roles of human values and threat perceptions, which represent widely adopted frames, public discourses seem much more important in explaining attitudes toward asylum policy across Europe.