Social Sciences

A robust literature focused on social capital created in the family has emphasized the efficacy of parental involvement in child, adolescent, and young adult development. Social capital created with and derived from parents has strong and consistent connections to academic achievement and attainments and pro-social behavior, as well as protective effects against delinquent behavior and mental health difficulties. Other forms of family social capital, however, are less well understood. In this paper, we explore the association between social capital built with and derived from siblings and self-confidence during emerging adulthood, including examining how sibling social capital built at different times might contribute to the development of self-confidence. We use restricted-use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), with information on 3630 respondents who had siblings who were also study participants, and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) models with robust standard errors to test our hypothesis that greater sibling social capital would be associated with greater self-confidence in adolescents and emerging adulthood, net of other forms of social capital and demographic characteristics. Our findings support that hypothesis, suggesting that social capital derived from siblings is another significant potential source of key resources during important developmental stages. In particular, sibling social capital has a significant correlation to the self-confidence of individuals transitioning to adulthood.

Through a series of over 100 bilingual interviews with Hispanic San Antonians, the COVID-19 Oral Historias Project documents the Latino/a/e community’s experiences through the pandemic by sharing individual stories, amplifying local voices, and creating compassion in a fragmented time. The present article documents the project itself, contextualizing its creation, detailing its methodology, highlighting the most common themes across interviews, and pointing out its novel contributions. While the interviewees’ experiences are inarguably diverse, narrative threads were found throughout the corpus, united by the duality of the narrators’ experiences; throughout this period, they simultaneously negotiated community norms and official health directives, local and international anxieties, and hopelessness and hope. The project is unique in (1) its language use, privileging minoritized ways of speaking (Spanish and Spanglish); (2) its size, with over 100 interviews; and (3) its clearly delimited scope, with all respondents living in San Antonio. This massive, unified resource creates a public collection of bilingual stories, highlighting non-hegemonic voices that are of value to the community itself, as well as to the recorded history of the pandemic, filling in historical gaps and providing real, lived accounts of this period that might otherwise be lost over time.

Political rhetoric on immigration has increasingly framed it as a threat to public safety—fueling aggressive immigration enforcement strategies, including the expanded use of federal agents, mass deportations, and strict border controls. In particular, the immigration-crime narrative has been built on four key themes or “pillars,” which suggest that immigration (1) increases crime, (2) fuels gang violence, (3) is responsible for drug problems, and (4) requires mass deportation and strict border control policies to combat these issues and reduce crime. Using data from a 2025 Lucid survey and a review of existing literature, this article provides a clear and focused summary describing the extent to which these four claims of the immigration-crime narrative are supported by (1) public opinion and (2) findings from scientific research. As we highlight in the following sections, all four of these “pillars” of the immigration-crime narrative are in fact myths with no consistent empirical support.