The Significance of Aggregate Dependent Variables and Contextual Independent Variables

for Linking Macro and Micro Theories

Author(s): Allen E. Liska
Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 292-301
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786735
Accessed: 20-03-2020 01:26 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Social Psychology Quarterly

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Social Psychology Quarterly
1990, Vol. 53, No. 4, 292-301

The Significance of Aggregate Dependent Variables and

Contextual Independent Variables for Linking Macro
and Micro Theories

ALLEN E. LISKA
State University of New York at Albany

Group-level properties have played a significant role in social science theory and research.
Since the 1970s, however, they have been criticized for explaining only an insignificant
proportion of the variance of a variety of variables, such as suicide and academic
achievement. We believe that the ensuing methodological debate, although certainly
important, has obscured some important theoretical questions. In this paper we examine the
usefulness of aggregate dependent variables, whose ratio of between-unit to within-unit
variance may be small, in testing macro theory and in linking micro and macro theories;
and we examine the usefulness of contextual independent variables in testing micro theory
and in linking micro and macro theories.

Sociologists have long been interested in
linking micro and macrolevels of analysis-
that is, in showing how characteristics at one
level relate to or even influence characteris-
tics at another. Concern for the problem is
found in the work of the forefathers of the
discipline: Durkheim, Marx, and Weber.
Durkheim was concerned with showing how
forms of social organization, such as anomie,
affect individual actions, such as suicide.
Marx examined how modes of production,
such as capitalism, affect individual charac-
teristics, such as self-interest and alienation.
Weber, reversing the causal order, explored
how individual interests and motives associ-
ated with Protestantism affect macro charac-
teristics, such as capitalism. Recently the
macro-micro question has been revitalized, as
evidenced by a major conference sponsored
by the theory sections of the German and
American sociological associations in 1984
(Alexander, Giesen, Munch, and Smelser
1987) and by the theme ("The Micro-Macro
Link") of the 1989 meetings of the American
Sociological Association.
Before proceeding to the specific issue of
this paper, it is necessary to posit a
conceptual scheme for describing the proper-
ties of macro units and the links between
macro and micro units. Although sociologists
have formulated various general conceptual
schemes to describe the properties of social
groups and collectivities, most of these
schemes derive from the traditional scheme of
Lazarsfeld and Menzel (1965), which de-
scribes social units in terms of analytical
(aggregate), structural, and global properties.
"Analytical" refers to the aggregation of
individual properties, such as the mean
income and education of a group. "Struc-
tural" refers to relationships between individ-
uals within a group, such as power and
communication. "Global" refers to the social
products of a group, such as laws and
language. We see no compelling reason to
depart from this scheme.
The phrase "macro-micro linkage" refers
to the relationship between macro (collective)
characteristics and micro (individual) actions.
Following Coleman (1986), I believe that this
relationship should be analyzed as two
distinct theoretical questions: 1) How do
micro actions combine to yield macro charac-
teristics (the micro-to-macro link)? 2) How
are micro actions shaped and constrained by
macro characteristics (the macro-to-micro
link)? (See Figure 1.) These are different
problems, which require different strategies.
The micro-to-macro linkage problems (Figure
1, Linkage d) address the following question:
How do individual actions combine to yield
group properties? The linkage is relatively
simple if the group property is an aggregate;
the rule of combination is simply that of
statistical aggregation. For example, individ-
ual suicides can be aggregated, or "com-
bined," over some social unit and expressed
as a rate of that unit; individual religious
affiliation (e.g., Catholicism) can be aggre-
gated over some social unit and expressed as
a proportion of the population of that unit.
The linkage is very complex, however, if

292

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LINKING MACRO AND MICRO THEORIES 293
the group property is a structural relationship
or product. In such cases the combinational
rules refer not to a statistical operation but to
social processes by which individual actions
produce or yield social relationships and
social products that are qualitatively different
from the characteristics of the individual
actions. Perhaps, to hide our ignorance of the
underlying social processes, we talk vaguely
about "emergent" properties as if that con-
cept explained something. For example, how
do the economic preferences and resources of
many individuals combine to yield a market
price? How do the political preferences of
many individuals combine to yield a public
choice? How do the fears of many individuals
combine to produce a social panic? And how
does the dissatisfaction of many individuals
combine to produce a revolution? Although
work on some of these problems is in
progress among economists on markets,
among political scientists on public choices,
and among psychologists on "free rider"
problems, it is not well developed and
integrated, and few sociologists have partici-
pated in any systematic way.
Sociologists have addressed macro-to-
micro linkage problems more rigorously
(Figure 1, Linkage b). In the 1920s, 1930s,
and 1940s sociologists and anthropologists
examined the link between general cultural
themes and general individual values, beliefs,
and personality characteristics, and produced
studies of the American personality, the
Russian personality, the German personality,
the Japanese personality, and so forth. By the
1960s sociologists had turned to the link
between specific structural positions (e.g.,
occupation, social class, race, sex, and age)
and specific individual attitudes, beliefs, and
behavior. (See Rosenberg's [1979] work
linking race and self concept, Sewell's [1975]
work linking class and educational aspira-
tions, and Kohn's [1977] work linking
occupation and values.)
Protestantism Capitalism
(religious system) (economic system)
Macro Level (a)
(b) (d)
Micro Level (c)
Individual Economic
Values Behavior
Figure 1. Macro-to-Micro and Micro-to-Macro Linkage
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Over this period a strategy, termed "con-
textual analysis," developed for comparing
the effects of macro- and micro-level proper-
ties on individuals. The properties of individ-
uals are explained by their own individual-
level properties and by those of the groups in
which they are members (aggregate, struc-
tural, and global). For example, individuals'
achievement may be explained by their own
ability or social class and by the mean social
class (aggregate), communication network
(structural relation), or population density
(global product) of the groups in which they
are members. Starting with the work of
Durkheim, these studies developed through
the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s in the Chicago
tradition (Faris and Dunham 1939) and
through the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s in the
Columbia tradition (Blau 1960).
During the 1970s, however, contextual
analyses were marked by controversy. One
major debate involved the ratio of between- to
within-social-unit variance in the dependent
variable. If this ratio is small, contextual
variables, which describe people by the
properties of their social units, can explain
only a small proportion of the total individual-
level variance. For example, if only 15
percent of the variance in academic achieve-
ment occurs between schools, contextual
variables that describe individuals according
to properties of their schools simply cannot
explain more than 15 percent of the total
individual-level variance; therefore these vari-
ables are relatively poor predictors of individ-
ual-level academic achievement (Farkas
1974; Hauser 1972, 1974, 1977). Compared
to individual-level variables (e.g., IQ), con-
textual-level variables frequently were found
to be poor predictors of individual-level
variance; indeed, by the late 1970s much
research (Hauser 1977) suggested that contex-
tual variables explain only a small proportion
of the total individual-level variance. Many
researchers questioned the contribution of
contextual variables to explaining individual-
level variation.
This issue spilled over into macro-level
analyses of aggregate dependent variables.
For example, Bidwell and Kasarda (1975)
studied the effect of school district composi-
tion and organization on the between-
school-district variance in achievement. The
study was criticized strongly (Alexander and
Griffin 1976; Hannan, Freeman, and Meyer
1976) for analyzing the causal relationships
 294 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
on the district level rather than the individual dependent variables, causal variables may
level of analysis. Alexander and Griffin
(1976, p. 145) argued that because "academic
achievement is first and foremost an attribute
of individual students," theory should be
couched at the individual level of analysis and
causal variables should be evaluated by the
proportion of the total variance, not merely by
the between-district variance, in achievement
that they explain.
While these critiques stimulated discussion
of the methodology for estimating contextual
effects (Alwin 1976; Boyd and Iverson 1979;
Ebring and Young 1979; Farkas 1974;
Lincoln and Zeitz 1980; Mason, Wong, and
Entwisle 1983; Raudenbush and Bryk 1986;
Sorenson 1977), they yielded two theoretical
conclusions. First, contextual causal variables
frequently explain little variance in micro-
level dependent variables; therefore micro-
level analyses should focus on micro- or
individual-level causal variables. Second,
many macro-level variables frequently are
nothing more than aggregations of individual-
level properties; therefore they should be
disaggregated and analyzed at the micro
level, and macro-level analysis should focus
on explaining structural and global (emergent)
macro properties. These two conclusions of
the late 1970s broadened the gap between
macro- and micro-level analyses during the
1980s.
This paper develops two basic points. First, Furthermore, the concern with within-unit
aggregate macro dependent variables are not
substantially less important than structural
and global macro dependent variables for
developing macro theory, and they may be
substantially more important than those types
of variables for linking micro and macro
levels of analysis. Second, contextual inde-
pendent or causal variables (global products,
structural relations, and aggregates) are not
substantially less important than individual-
level causal variables for developing micro-
level theory, and they may be substantially
more important than such variables for
linking macro and micro levels of analysis.
AGGREGATE DEPENDENT VARIABLES
We will consider first the role of aggregate aggregate) as an indicator of both causal
dependent variables in building and testing
macro-level theory and in integrating macro-
with micro-level theory.
Building and Testing Macro-Level Theory
In a macro-level analysis of aggregate
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
explain a significant proportion of the be-
tween-unit variance. Yet if the between-unit
variance does not constitute a substantial
proportion of the total variance, the causal
variables may be criticized for explaining a
significant proportion of only an insignificant
fraction of the total variance. This is a
common criticism because much, perhaps
even most, macro analysis examines aggre-
gates in which a significant or even a major
proportion of the total variation occurs within
rather than between social units. For exam-
ple, this may well be the case for achievement
and schools (Hauser 1972; Kerckhoff 1986;
Shavit and Williams 1985), for delinquency
and neighborhoods (Braithwaite 1979; Samp-
son 1986; Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz 1986),
for employees' morale and work organiza-
tions (Lincoln and Kalleberg 1985; Zeitz
1983), and perhaps even for suicide and
countries (Pope 1976), the phenomenon
traditionally used to illustrate the subject
matter of sociology. The general issue is this:
Does within-unit variation, whatever its
proportion of the total variation, play a role in
building and testing macro theory?
For the most part I argue that it plays little
role. Sometimes aggregates are nothing more
than a convenient measure of nonaggregate
group properties; at other times aggregates
themselves constitute real group properties.
variance reflects a social problem orientation
to research rather than a theoretical approach.
Aggregates as a convenience of measure-
ment. In thinking about this issue it is
necessary to distinguish aggregate theoretical
variables from aggregate measures of struc-
tural or global theoretical variables because in
measuring the theoretical properties of social
units, the selection of global, structural, or
aggregate variables is frequently a matter of
convenience.
Consider Weber's thesis on the Protestant
ethic and capitalism and Durkheim's thesis on
individualism and suicide. Researchers (e.g.,
Pope 1976) frequently have used the percent-
age of Protestants in a social unit (an
concepts: Protestant ethic and individualism.
Weber's dependent variable, capitalism, gen-
erally is measured globally-e.g., as the ratio
of private to public investment funds in a
social unit-in which case there is no
individual analog (Roy 1984). In contrast,
 LINKING MACRO AND MICRO THEORIES 295
Durkheim's dependent variable, suicide, gen-
erally is measured as an aggregate rate; in this
case there is an individual analog and
consequently the likelihood of within-unit
variance (Pope 1976).
To focus the issue clearly, assume either
that there is no effect of Protestantism on
suicide at the individual level (Protestants are
not more likely that non-Protestants to
commit suicide) or that if there is such an
effect, it is statistically adjusted for in
estimating the macro-level effect (Lincoln and
Zeitz 1980). Further assume that at the macro
level the percentage of Protestants affects
capitalism and suicide equally (e.g.,
R2= .50). Which hypothesis-Weber's or
Durkheim's-is supported more strongly by
the analysis? If we consider only the
between-unit variance in capitalism and
suicide rates, both hypotheses would seem to
be supported equally. For capitalism this is
not even an issue; when it is measured as a
global variable, the between-unit variance is
equivalent to the total variance. For suicide,
on the other hand, it is an issue; when it is
measured as an aggregate variable, within-
unit variance is quite likely. If 50 percent of
the total variation occurs within units, the
percentage of Protestants accounts for only 25
percent of the total variance. Thus there
appears to be less evidence for Durkheim's
hypothesis than for Weber's. Yet capitalism,
seemingly a structural variable, could be
measured as an aggregate, such as the rate of
investors or entrepreneurs (Bechhofer and
Elliott 1985). Measured as an aggregate,
within-unit variance is likely. If 50 percent of
the total variance in investors occurs within
units, then the percentage of Protestants also
accounts for only 25 percent of the total
variance of capitalism.
Should the empirical evaluation of Weber's
Protestant ethic-capitalism thesis hinge on
whether capitalism is operationalized by
global/structural properties that include no
within-unit variance or by aggregate proper-
ties that include such variance? In cases like
these, the empirical evaluation of macro
theory clearly should not hinge on the
proportion of the total variation in the
measure that exists between units; it should
not depend on whether or not the variable is
operationalized as a global product, a struc-
tural relation, or an aggregate. This decision
is frequently quite arbitrary and somewhat a
matter of convenience.
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Aggregates as real properties of social
units.' It is clear that structural and global
properties, which have no individual ana-
logues, are properties of social units. To
reiterate, global properties refer directly to the
products or outcomes (language, laws, or
gross national product) of both the relation-
ships between individuals and the patterns of
individual activities within social units; struc-
tural properties refer directly to these relation-
ships and patterns. Democracy, for example,
is a complex pattern and sequence of both
relationships and individual activities (voting,
exercising authority, campaigning); and auto-
mobile production, for example, is a product
of a complex pattern and sequence of both
relationships and individual activities. These
relationships and products are the properties
of social units and are explained by other
properties of those units. Neither the relation-
ships nor the products have equivalent
individual analogues.
It is not so intuitively clear that aggregates,
which have individual analogues, are proper-
ties of social units. Because aggregates have
meaningful individual analogues, it is tempt-
ing to conceptualize them as individual
1 Because aggregate properties have individual ana-
logues, we must address two issues that are irrelevant for
structural and global properties. First, as the ratio of
between-unit to total variance approaches zero, at what
point is the between-unit variance too insignificant to
warrant analysis? Although this question is difficult,
theoretically it can be answered statistically. If the
between-unit variance is not large enough to be
statistically significant, probably it is too small to warrant
analysis and might well be considered as sampling or
measurement error. This argument is meant not to
equivocate or to soften the basic thesis of this paper, but
merely to acknowledge that all social aggregates do not
necessarily vary across macro units at all levels of
analysis (city, country, state, nation) and to suggest that
for some aggregates the between-unit variance may be
small enough to be conceptualized as sampling or
measurement error. Second, if the between-unit variance
is statistically significant and if both the dependent and
the independent variables are aggregates, then in testing
macro theory it is necessary to partition the net
macro-level effect into a residual macro effect and an
individual-level effect that is observed through selection/
grouping processes at the macro level-the familiar
selection/grouping aggregation effect (Lincoln and Zeitz
1980). For example, it is necessary to partition the net
effect of neighborhood SES on neighborhood delin-
quency rates into a neighborhood SES effect and an
individual SES effect that is observed at the macro level
through selection/grouping. This point is important
because these two effects generally reflect different
causal processes and because most macro theories refer to
processes associated with macro-level effects (Lincoln
and Zeitz 1980).
 296 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
properties and consequently to couch theory
at the individual level. Aggregates, however,
also have many of the characteristics of
structural and global properties that make
them meaningful properties of social units:
aggregates frequently manifest a pattern of
variation across social units and over time that
reflects the organization of those units.
Durkheim recognized this phenomenon. He
observed, for example, that suicide rates vary
across social units, such as regions and
nations, and frequently are stable over time
within those units; thus he argued that
variation in suicide rates across social units
reflects the social organization of them.
The early Chicagoans (e.g., Faris and
Dunham 1939) also recognized this point.
They observed that many forms of behavior
vary across the zones of a city and frequently
are stable over time within these zones; thus
they also argued that aggregates frequently
reflect the social organization of social units.
They observed, for example, that deviance
(crime, delinquency, mental illness, drug use,
alcoholism, and suicide) varies substantially
across the ecological zones of a city and that
this ecological variation is stable over time.
They argued that the high rates of deviance in
these zones are explained by the characteris-
tics of collective life in these zones, not by
the characteristics of the individuals who
reside there.
In testing Faris and Dunham's theory of
collective life and the rates of deviance,
should it matter whether the between-zone
variance in deviance accounts for 10, 30, or
50 percent of the total variance in deviance?
Perhaps it should matter if our primary
concern is a theory of crime, delinquency,
mental illness, and such, but it definitely
should not matter if our primary purpose is a
theory of collective life-that is, a theory of
how some characteristics of collective life
influence, shape, and pattern other character-
istics. Whether the latter are global products
or structural relations, which have no vari-
ance within social units, or aggregates, which
have such variance, should be incidental.
Generally I am arguing that the within-unit
variance in aggregates should not detract from
the fact that the between-unit variance in
aggregates frequently behaves like the be-
tween-unit variance in structural relations and
global products and thus can be used to test
macro theories of social organization. Indeed
I am arguing that the variation between macro
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
units, not the ratio of between-unit to
within-unit variation, is crucial in establishing
aggregates as macro properties.
Aggregates as social problems. Criticizing
a macro-level theory because it explains a
significant proportion of an insignificant
fraction of the total variance confuses macro
theory testing with social problems research.
Clearly the total variance is important for
social problems research; frequently it is more
important than merely the proportion that
occurs between macro units, and causal
variables should be evaluated by their contri-
bution to explaining the total variance. Yet
the fact that only a fraction of the total
variance occurs between social units should
not even be relevant to formulating and
testing macro-level theory.
Because so much American sociology is
oriented towards social problems rather than
theory testing, researchers have come to
evaluate causal variables by their contribution
to explaining the total variance in a particular
dependent variable. Research typically exam-
ines academic achievement, delinquency, or
suicide, for example, as social problems, not
as opportunities to test and extend general
macro theories which have implications for
all types of social phenomena, including
aggregates, structures, and global products.
General macro theories such as Blau's theory
of social structure are important because they
explain a substantial proportion of the be-
tween-unit variance in a wide range of
structures, global products, and social aggre-
gates, although they may explain only a small
proportion of the total variance in any one of
the aggregates.
Linking Micro and Macro Levels
Aggregate dependent variables are not only
perfectly suitable for testing macro theory,
but also may be uniquely appropriate for
linking macro and micro levels of analysis.
Unlike the complex social processes that link
global product/structural macro dependent
variables to micro actions, the rules that link
aggregate macro dependent variables to micro
actions are simple statistical rules of aggrega-
tion and disaggregation. Indeed it is the
simplicity of the linkage that has led many
scholars to question the macro status of
aggregates. Consider two macro dependent
variables: one an aggregate (e.g., suicide
rate) and the other a global product (e.g.,
 LINKING MACRO AND MICRO THEORIES 297
death penalty law). For the former, simple
statistical rules of aggregation and disaggre-
gation link micro actions and macro-level
properties. A death penalty law, however, is a
global product, and as such cannot be
disaggregated into individual actions. It is an
"emergent" property of social units that can
be linked to individual actions only through
complicated social processes which connect
the acts of voters to election outcomes, the
acts of legislators to the passage of the law,
and the acts of executives and judges to the
administration and interpretation of the law.
Indeed, the act of voting for a legislator who
favors crime, or even the death penalty, is far
removed from the execution rate or even the
passage of the death penalty law, which are
global products.
In addition, because micro actions and their
macro aggregates are conceptually similar,
the explanations of within-group variation of
micro actions and between-group variation of
macro aggregates also may be conceptually
similar. Consider Durkheim's ([1897] 1950)
theory that suicide occurs because of social
deregulation and that religious, economic,
and marital statuses are indicators of regula-
tion. The Catholic religion is more regulatory
than the Protestant religion; therefore Catho-
lics are less likely to commit suicide than
Protestants, and Catholic countries experience
lower suicide rates than do Protestant coun-
tries. At the micro level, individual suicides
are explained in part by religious affiliation;
at the macro level, suicide rates are explained
in part by religious composition. Although
social deregulation operates through multiple
social processes (socialization and social
control), it is the underlying explanatory
concept at both levels.
On the other hand, structural relations/
global products and individual actions fre-
quently are so conceptually different and are
linked so remotely and so loosely that they
are unlikely to be explained by the same or
even similar causal variables. For example,
the processes and structures that explain the
passage of a death penalty law or the
execution rate may have more connection
with processes and structures that explain the
mobilization of special interests than with
those which explain the votes of individuals
in popular elections.
To summarize, I have examined the role of
aggregate dependent variables in testing
macro-level theory and in integrating macro-
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and micro-level theories. Many researchers
either argue explicitly or assume implicitly
that aggregating individual properties to the
level of some social unit, such as a school or
a city, does not fundamentally change the fact
that they are individual properties and there-
fore that theory should be couched and tested
at the individual level; that is, that theory
should explain the variance within as well as
between social units. I believe that this
argument obscures important conceptual dis-
tinctions and theoretical issues. In some cases
aggregates are nothing more than measures of
convenience for structural relations or social
products; because the latter have no within-
unit variance, the within-unit variance in
individual aggregates can be ignored safely.
In other cases, aggregates themselves consti-
tute a theoretical property in the sense that
they, like structural relations and global
products, vary systematically across social
units. Thus although aggregate properties of
social units have individual analogues and
consequently have within-unit variance,
which can be conceptualized within micro
theory, these aggregate properties should not
be treated differently from structural and
global properties in testing macro theories.
Yet, because aggregate properties of social
units have conceptually similar individual
analogues, aggregate dependent variables also
facilitate the linking of macro- and micro-
level theory. The statistical rules linking
aggregate macro and micro dependent vari-
ables are simple; the social processes that
explain variance within and between social
units are likely to be similar.
I am not suggesting that aggregate depen-
dent variables are to be preferred over
structural/global product dependent variables.
Much of macro sociology has been built on
explaining structural relations and social
products. Rather I am suggesting that aggre-
gate dependent variables have their place in
macro-level analysis. The fact that they have
within-unit variance is not necessarily rele-
vant to macro analysis, and may even
facilitate macro-micro linkages.
CONTEXTUAL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Micro-Level Theory
I now turn to the implications of this
discussion for developing and testing micro-
level theory where the total variance includes
 298 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
both between- and within-unit variance and
where the causal variables include both those
variables which describe people by their own
properties and those variables, termed contex-
tual, which describe people by the global,
structural, and aggregate properties of their
social units. Specifically, as the ratio of
between-unit to within-unit variance in aggre-
gate dependent variables decreases and even
approaches zero, is there a corresponding
decrease in the importance of contextual
causal variables in testing micro theory?
When the variance between social units
constitutes only a small proportion of the total
variance in a dependent variable, causal
variables that describe people by the proper-
ties of their social units can explain only a
small proportion of the total variance at the
micro, or individual, level of analysis. Since
the 1970s this point has been used frequently
to criticize the usefulness of contextual causal
variables (Alexander and Griffin 1976; Han-
nan et al. 1976; Hauser 1970). The criticism
seems to be reasonable because the total
variance between individuals, whether it
occurs between or within social units, is
theoretically relevant, and all causal variables
can be judged by their contribution to
explaining it.
These criticisms, however, ignore another
point: Although macro properties of social
units-global products, structural relations,
and aggregates-may explain only a small
proportion of the total variance in any specific
individual-level variable, they frequently do
so for a large number and a wide range of
individual-level variables. Research in vari-
ous traditions shows that the social class, sex,
and racial composition of a social unit affects
a large number of individual-level variables,
such as divorce, suicide, academic and
occupational aspirations, delinquency, voting,
party reference, mental illness, self-concept,
and stress (see Alexander, Fennessy, McDill,
and D'Amico 1979; Blalock and Wilken
1979; Braithwaite 1979; Drury 1980; Kanter
1977; Kerckhoff 1986; Kulik and Kulik 1982;
Lincoln and Kalleberg 1985; Prizeworski
1974; Rosenberg 1979; Sampson 1986; Shavit
and Williams 1985; Simcha-Fagan and
Schwartz 1986; Wright 1979; Zeitz 1983).
This point is very important in establishing
the usefulness of contextual variables. Weber,
Durkheim, and Marx recognized it clearly,
but many contemporary sociologists seem to
have forgotten it. They have come to limit
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
their work to very narrow areas of specializa-
tion-i.e., one dependent variable-and thus
have been simply uninterested, or even
unaware, of the range of contextual effects.
Linking Micro and Macro Levels
These criticisms also ignore the role of
contextual independent variables in linking
micro and macro theory. Such variables
(global, structural, and aggregate) in micro-
level theory facilitate the micro-macro link
simply because they are used in macro-level
theory. These variables, which constitute a
conceptual link between macro and micro
theories, should not be judged merely by the
proportion of the total variance that they
explain. They assume a special significance
in micro theories. Indeed, even when only a
small proportion of the total variance of a
dependent variable occurs between social
units, and consequently when contextual
causal variables can explain only a very small
proportion of the total variance, that very
small proportion and the contextual variables
that explain it are pivotal in conceptually
linking macro- and micro-level theories.
Assume, for example, that 20 percent of
the variance in suicide occurs between cities
and that 80 percent occurs within cities.
Assume further that the economic structure
(e.g. income inequality) of cities explains 30
percent of the between-city variance; thus it is
a powerful explanatory variable at the macro
(city) level. Yet because the between-city
variance constitutes only 20 percent of the
total variance, the economic structure of cities
potentially can explain only 6 percent of the
total variance (30% x 20% = 6%).
Compared to other factors, such as family
size and individual attitudes, this and other
contextual variables may explain only a
relatively small proportion of the total vari-
ance in suicide and thus may be deemed
unimportant in micro theory. Yet this ex-
plained variance, "little or large," is crucial
in linking theory across societal and individ-
ual levels of analysis.
Family size, for example, may explain 30
percent of the within-city suicide variance,
and assuming that 80 percent of the total
suicide variance occurs within cities, family
size explains 24 percent of the total variance
(30% x 80% = 24%). Family size thus is
four times as powerful as economic structure
in explaining the total variance in suicide. If
 LINKING MACRO AND MICRO THEORIES 299
for some reason, however, family size does
not appear in macro (city)-level theories of
suicide (perhaps because it does not vary
between cities), it cannot play a role in
linking macro- and micro-level theories.
We are suggesting that causal variables
which are an integral part of macro theory are
especially significant to micro theory. Al-
though they may not explain as much of the
total variance as do individual-level variables
(interpersonal experiences and psychological
factors), they are critical in linking theory
across micro and macro levels of analysis. If
micro research uses explained variance as the
only criterion for deciding what causal
variables to study, this research may well
focus on only interpersonal and psychological
variables because generally they explain a
higher proportion of the total variance than do
contextual variables. Yet if we are concerned
with linking micro and macro theory, those
variables which explain a high proportion of
the variance between social units take on a
special significance in micro theory.
In theory building, causal variables are
important because they explain a large
amount of variance in one dependent vari-
able, some variance in many dependent
variables, or some variance in both macro-
and micro-level dependent variables. Whereas
the causal variables that meet the first
criterion are empirically predictive, those
which meet the second and third criteria are
theoretically rich: they enter into numerous
theoretical propositions, broaden theoretical
networks, and link micro and macro levels.
Many contemporary researchers, in concen-
trating on "their" dependent variable, have
ignored the latter functions of contextual
variables.
SUMMARY
The development of the micro-macro links
may have been inhibited, one, because macro
researchers have preferred to explain global
product and structural variables as somehow
more sociological than aggregate variables
and, two, because micro researchers have
neglected contextual variables as they fre-
quently explain only a small proportion of the
total variance at the micro level. We have
questioned these research strategies.
In testing macro theory, I argue that the
presence of within-unit variance should not
imply that the between-unit variation in
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
aggregates is to be treated any differently
from the between-unit variation in structural
relations or global products. Indeed, variation
both within and between units, which is
possible only with aggregates, facilitates the
linking of micro and macro levels. Linkage
involves relatively simple statistical rules of
aggregation or disaggregation. In addition,
aggregates and their individual analogues tend
to be conceptually similar; the presence of
conceptually similar dependent variables at
both levels increases the likelihood of concep-
tually similar explanatory processes and
structures at both levels.
At the micro level the problem is somewhat
different: the relevant variance includes both
between- and within-unit variance. If only a
small portion of the variance occurs between
social units, the macro properties (contextual
variables) of these units can explain only a
small proportion of the total variance, perhaps
far less than that explained by interpersonal
and psychological variables. Nonetheless,
even if contextual effects are small, they are
theoretically significant because they operate
over a wide range of research areas and
dependent variables. This observation has
been hidden from many contemporary re-
searchers who work within increasingly
narrow research specializations. Furthermore,
because contextual independent variables (ag-
gregates, structural relations and global prod-
ucts) are part of macro theory, using them in
micro theory strengthens micro-macro links.
On one hand, I think that macro researchers
sometimes have looked too far from individ-
ual action for their subject matter, and thus
may have inhibited macro-micro integration.
The subject matter of macro sociology is
defined not by properties with no individual
analogues, but by those which vary over social
units and across time. The fact that some of
these properties have individual analogues
and thus have variation within macro units
should not jeopardize their status as macro
properties; indeed, it may even facilitate
macro-micro integration. On the other hand,
we think that micro researchers sometimes
have focused too closely on their subject
matter; that is, they have focused only on the
dependent variable that concerned them,
thereby ignoring contextual variables. Such
variables do not always explain a substantial
portion of the variance in any one dependent
variable, but they do explain a significant
portion of the variance in a wide range of
 300 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
dependent variables and play a pivotal role in
integrating macro- and micro-level research.
REFERENCES
Alexander, Jeffrey C., Bernhard Giesen, Richard
Munch, and Neil J. Smelser. 1987. The Micro-Macro
Link. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Alexander, Karl L., James Fennessey, Edward L.
McDill, and Ronald J. D'Amico. 1979. "School SES
Influence-Composition or Context?" Sociology of
Education 52:222-37.
Alexander, Karl L. and Larry J. Griffin. 1976. "School
District Effects on Academic Achievement: A recon-
sideration. " American Sociological Review 41:144-51.
Alwin, Duane. 1976. "Assessing School Effects: Some
Identities." Sociology of Education 49:294-303.
Astin, Alexander W. 1970. "The Methodology of
Research on College Impact, Part One." Sociology of
Education 43:223-54.
Bechhofer, F. and B. Elliott. 1985. "The Petite
Bourgeoisie in Late Capitalism." Pp. 181-207 in
Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 11, edited by
R.H. Turner and J. F. Short, Jr. Palo Alto:Annual
Reviews.
Bidwell, Charles E. and John D. Kasarda. 1976. "Reply
to Hannan, Freeman, and Meyer, and Alexander and
Griffin." American Sociological Review 41:152-59.
. 1975. "Social District Organization and Student
Achievement." American Sociological Review 40:
55-70.
Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. and Paul H. Wilken. 1979.
Group Processes: A Micro/Macro Perspective. New
York: Free Press.
Blau, Peter M. 1960. "Structural Effects." American
Sociological Review 25:178-93.
. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive
Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Boyd, Lawrence H., Jr. and Gudmund R. Iverson. 1979.
Contextual Analysis: Concepts and Statistical Tech-
niques. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Braithwaite, John. 1979. Inequality, Crime and Public
Policy. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Coleman, James S. 1968. "Equity of Educational
Opportunities: Reply to Bowles Levin." Journal of
Human Resources 3:237-46.
. 1986. "Social Theory, Social Research, and a
Theory of Action." American Journal of Sociology 91:
1309-35.
Drury, Darrell. 1980. Black Self-Esteem and Desegre-
gated Schools." Sociology of Education 53:88-103.
Durkheim, Emile. (1897) 1950. Suicide, A Study in
Sociology, translated by J.A. Spaulding and G.
Simpson. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ebring, Lutz and Alice A. Young. 1979. "Individuals
and Social Structure." Sociological Methods and
Research 7:396-430.
Faris, Robert E.L. and H. Warren Dunham. 1939.
Mental Disorders in Urban Areas. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Farkas, George. 1974. "Specification, Residuals, and
Contextual Effects." Sociological Methods and Re-
search 2:333-63.
Hannan, Michael T. 1970. Problems of Aggregation and
Disaggregation in Sociological Research. Chapel Hill:
Institute for Research in Social Science, University of
North Carolina
This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hannan, Michael T., John H. Freeman, and John W.
Meyer. 1976. "Specification of Models for Organiza-
tional Effectiveness." American Sociological Review
41:136-43.
Hauser, Robert M. 1970. "Context and Consex: A
cautionary Tale." American Journal of Sociology 75:
645-64.
. 1972. Socioeconomic Background and Educa-
tional Performance. Washington, DC: American
Sociological Association.
_ . 1974. "Contextual Analysis Revisited." Socio-
logical Methods and Research 2:365-75.
_ . 1977. "On 'A Reconceptualization of School
Effects.' " Sociology of Education 51:68-71.
House, James S. 1981. "Social Structure and Personal-
ity." Pp. 525-61 in Social Psychology, edited by M.
Rosenberg and R.H. Turner. New York: Basic Books.
Inkeles, A. and D. Smith. 1974. Becoming Modern:
Individual Change in Six Developing Countries.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. "Some Effects of
Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Ratios and
Responses to Token Women." American Journal of
Sociology 82:965-90.
Kerckhoff, Alan. 1986. "Effects of Ability Grouping in
British Secondary Schools." American Sociological
Review 51:842-58.
Kohn, M.L. 1977. Class and Conformity. 2nd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kulik, C.C. and J.A. Kulik. 1982. "Effects of Ability
Grouping on Secondary School Students: A Meta
Analysis of Evaluatory Findings." American Educa-
tional Research Journal 19:415-28.
Lazarsfeld, Paul and Herbert Menzel. 1965. "On the
Relations between Individual and Collective Proper-
ties." Pp. 422-40 in Reader on Complex Organiza-
tions, edited by Amitai Etzioni. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Lincoln, James R. and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1985. "Work
Organization and Workforce Commitment: A Study of
Plants and Employees in the U.S. and Japan."
American Sociological Review 50:738-60.
Lincoln, James and Gerald Zeitz. 1980. "Organizational
Properties from Aggregate Data: Separating Individual
and Structural effects." American Sociological Review
45:391-408.
Mason, William M., C.Y. Wong, and Barbara Entwisle.
1983. "Contextual Analysis through the Multilevel
Linear Model." Pp. 72-103 in Sociological Methodol-
ogy, edited by Samuel Leinhardt. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pope, Whitney. 1976. Durkheim's Suicide. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Prizeworski, Adam. 1974. "Contextual Models of
Political Behavior." Political Methodology 1:30-57.
Raudenbush, S. and A.S. Bryk. 1986. "A Hierarchical
Model for Studying School Effects." Sociology of
Education 59:1-17.
Robinson, William S. 1950. "Ecological Correlations
and the Behavior of Individuals." American Sociolog-
ical Review 15:351-57.
Rosenberg, Morris. 1979. Concerning the Self. New
York: Basic Books.
Roy, William G. 1984. "Class Conflict and Social
Change in Historical Perspective." Pp. 483-506 in
Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 10, edited by
R.H. Turner and J.F. Short, Jr. Palo Alto: Annual
Reviews.
 LINKING MACRO AND MICRO THEORIES 301

Sampson, Robert T. 1986. "Effects of Socioeconomic "Neighborhood and Delinquency: An Assessment of

Context on Official Reactions to Juvenile Delin-
quency." American Sociological Review 51:842-58.
Sewell, William H. and Robert M. Hauser. 1975.
Education, Occupation and Earnings. New York:
Academic Press.
Shavit, Yossi and Richard A. Williams. 1985. "Ability
Grouping and Contextual Determinants of Educational
Expectations in Israel." American Sociological Review
50:62-73.
Simcha-Fagan, Ora and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1986.
Contextual Effects." Criminology 24:667-703.
Sorenson, Aage B. and Maureen T. Hallinan. 1977. "A
Reconceptualization of School Effects." Sociology of
Education 50:273-289.
Wright, Gerald C., Jr. 1979. "Contextual Models of
Electoral Behavior." The Southern Wallace Vote."
American Political Science Review 71:497-508.
Zetiz, Gerald. 1983. "Structural and Individual Determi-
nants of Organizational Morale and Satisfaction."
Social Forces 61:1088-1109.

ALLEN E. LISKA is Professor of Sociology at the State University of New YorklAlbany. His current
research examines the causes and consequences of social control at both the micro and macro levels.

MANUSCRIPTS FOR THE

ASA ROSE SOCIOLOGY SERIES

Manuscripts (100 to 300 typed pages) are solicited for publica-

tion in the ASA Arnold and Caroline Rose Monograph Series.

The Series welcomes a variety of types of sociological work-

qualitative or quantitative empirical studies, and theoretical or
methodological treatises. An author should submit three copies

of a manuscript for consideration to the Series Editor, Professor

Teresa A. Sullivan, University of Texas, Population Research Cen-
ter, 1800 Main, Austin, TX 78712.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:26:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms