Search

Across various domains of social life, organizational reliance on personal data and exposure to unanticipated financial hardship have transformed Americans' life chances and access to opportunities. This article examines an area where they intersect: the hardship caused by breakdowns in information systems. I focus on the case of identity theft, showing how that event—experienced by tens of millions of Americans annually—contributes to economic insecurity. To do so, I first develop a theory of insecurity that links feelings of precariousness to breaches of trust at three levels: interpersonal, organizational, and systemic. Drawing on an original qualitative study of identity theft resolution, I find that most victims worried about their financial lives because they could no longer count on certain people, organizations, or systems. Beneath this commonality, race and class informed feelings of insecurity and associated coping strategies following identity theft. Low-income people and people of color tended to direct suspicion at personal networks and report ending relationships and informal assistance. In contrast, middle- and upper-income and White individuals disproportionately blamed organizations and demanded their protection. These findings—along with the trust-based theory that helped make them visible—have important implications for the study of insecurity, inequality, and trust in the information age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All sociologists recognize that social constraints affect individuals’ outcomes. These effects are sometimes relatively direct. Other times constraints affect outcomes indirectly, first influencing individuals’ personal characteristics, which then affect their outcomes. In the latter case, the social becomes personal, and personal characteristics that are carried across situations (e.g., skills, habits, identities, worldviews, preferences, or values) affect individuals’ outcomes. I argue here for the importance of both direct and indirect effects of constraints on outcomes. I disagree with the tendency among sociologists to avoid views highlighting the role of personal characteristics because of the perception—incorrect in my view—that these explanations “blame the victim” and ignore constraints. To illustrate the importance of both types of mechanisms, I explore two empirical cases involving how gender and class structure sexualities. First, I show that young men engage in same-sex relations less than women and have more heterosexist attitudes, and I ask why. Second, I provide evidence that people from disadvantaged class backgrounds are especially likely to have unintended pregnancies and nonmarital births, and I explore why. In each case, I provide evidence that both kinds of mechanisms are operating—mechanisms entailing direct effects of constraints on outcomes, and mechanisms in which constraints shape personal characteristics, which, in turn, affect outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]