Socioeconomic gradients in mortality new questions about personality and IQ

项目摘要 有些人提出，社会经济地位在死亡率方面的不平等可以用个体特征的影响来解释 对以后的社会地位和死亡率的影响。这种所谓的“间接选择”模式具有深远的影响， 不仅是社会理论，也是公共政策。关于政策是否应该 健康作为个人责任的问题，取决于诸如尽责性和智商等特征，或者作为一个 社会责任取决于个人控制之外的社会经济因素。然而，在这方面， 理论的趋同表明，间接选择模型的标准版本可能过于 至少在三个方面是简单的。首先，出生时社会经济环境的“残酷运气”可能 不仅影响后来的社会经济地位，而且还影响个人特征。这种影响的强度可能解释了一些 人格和智商似乎在解释成年SES和早期SES之间的联系方面发挥了明显的作用， mortality.其次，间接选择模型中的关键途径可能因性别和性别而异。 种族/民族。制度障碍可能会减少精英特质在经济和健康方面的好处， 妇女、少数民族和那些在有限的机会结构中成长的人。第三，许多人认为， 对智商（可能还有人格）的测量在社会阶层和种族之间存在系统性的偏见。如果是真的， 特征在SES中的明显作用和死亡率的种族差异可能被虚假地夸大或系统地夸大， 扭曲我们已经为超过94，000名项目成员的55年死亡率随访做好了准备 人才--一个在1960年的高中阶段抽样的全国性队列，当他们平均29-30岁时， 岁样本是前所未有的结合美国全国范围内的心理深度 测量.参与者的童年社会经济地位、认知能力和 在高中时就有个性，并在29-30岁时达到SES。我们还利用队列的独特方面， 历史语境--林登·约翰逊的“反美战争”--对静态和动态局部的探索性问题 经济机会结构和制度化的种族歧视。我们的死亡率数据收集 接近PT队列的自然预期寿命（72-73岁）的终点，使我们能够关注 过早死亡-可以说是健康不平等最敏感的晴雨表。我们的团队包括 个性和社会学专家（包括PT调查主任），包括少数民族健康专家 和历史学家，并由一个PI谁一直专注于这些问题在过去几年中领导。我们的项目是 因此，准备测试和完善关键的Au醋栗理论的作用，个性和智商可能发挥作用， 社会死亡率不平等。

Project Summary Some have proposed that SES inequalities in mortality can be explained by the influence of individual traits upon both later SES and mortality. This so-called “indirect selection” model has far-reaching implications not only for social theory, but also for public policy. Vigorous debate exists over whether policies should treat health as a matter of personal responsibility dependent upon traits such as Conscientiousness and IQ, or as a matter of social responsibility dependent upon socioeconomic factors outside the individual's control. However, converging strands of theory suggest that the standard version of the indirect selection model may be overly simplistic in at least three respects. First, the “brute luck” of socioeconomic circumstances at birth likely influences not only later SES, but also individual traits. The strength of this influence likely explains some of the apparent role personality and IQ seem to play in explaining associations between adulthood SES and earlier mortality. Second, key pathways in the indirect selection model likely vary across both gender and race/ethnicity. Institutional barriers may reduce the economic and health benefits of meritocratic traits among women, minorities, and those growing up within limited opportunity structures. Third, many argue that the measurement of IQ (and possibly personality) is systematically biased across social class and race. If true, the apparent role of traits in SES and race differences in mortality could be spuriously inflated or systematically distorted. We have carefully set the stage for a 55-year mortality follow-up of over 94,000 members of Project Talent--a national cohort sampled during high school in 1960, and again when they were on average 29-30 years old. The sample is unprecedented in combining national US scope with depth of psychological measurement. Detailed information exists on the childhood SES of participants, cognitive ability and personality in high school, and attained SES by age 29-30. We also leverage unique aspects of the cohort's historical context—Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty—in exploratory questions on static and changing local economic opportunity structure and institutionalized racial discrimination. Our mortality data-collection approximates the end of the natural life expectancy of the PT cohort (age 72-73), allowing us to focus on premature mortality--arguably, the most sensitive barometers of health inequalities. Our team features a mix of experts from personality and sociology (including the PT Survey Director), includes a minority health expert and historian, and is led by a PI who has focused on these issues for the past several years. Our project is thus poised to test and refine pivotal au currant conjectures about the role personality and IQ may play in social mortality inequalities.