Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis study tested the effect of normatively‐focused scientific consensus messages (NFSCMs) on receivers' intention to consume GE‐foods. In Study 1, the efficacy of a NFSCM was examined, relative to a standard descriptive norm message (SDNM), a scientific consensus message (SCM), and two control messages, issue‐relevant and issue‐irrelevant messages, using an experiment. In Study 2, the effect of the NFSCM with discrete descriptive norm formats was tested, relative to a standard message used in the real world, using an experiment. Results indicated that the effect of exposure to the NFSCM on intention was mediated via attentional focus on the norm information and perceptions about the norm, which is consistent with those in prior literature. The re‐specified model was not contingent on participants' education level, gender and political stance indicating a uniform effect. Exposure to the messages also changed receivers' feeling of disgust and un/certainty about the scientific issue in desirable ways.

Historical collective trauma is embedded in the shared consciousness of a collective, which can be considered as being the collective's culture. The healing of historical collective trauma is a most complex and challenging task. At the core of it is a collective process of working through painful and overwhelming experiences, which is only possible in a safe and supportive environment. This process involves remembering and making sense of defined events and depends on the possession of a capable and authentic "collective thinking apparatus," which is proposed here, to be a function of a collective's culture. The healing of single, defined traumatic events is, in many instances, limited by a pervasive, insidious, and continuing process of damage to and distortion of the underlying culture. This is a complex form of cultural trauma that needs to be addressed in order for the healing of historical collective trauma to be fully accomplished.

OBJECTIVES: Daily numbers of COVID-19 in Singapore from March to May 2020, the cause of a surge in cases in April and the national response were examined, and regulations on migrant worker accommodation studied. METHODS: Information was gathered from daily reports provided by the Ministry of Health, Singapore Statues online and a Ministerial statement given at a Parliament sitting on 4 May 2020. RESULTS: A marked escalation in the daily number of new COVID-19 cases was seen in early April 2020. The majority of cases occurred among an estimated 295 000 low-skilled migrant workers living in foreign worker dormitories. As of 6 May 2020, there were 17 758 confirmed COVID-19 cases among dormitory workers (88% of 20 198 nationally confirmed cases). One dormitory housing approximately 13 000 workers had 19.4% of residents infected. The national response included mobilising several government agencies and public volunteers. There was extensive testing of workers in dormitories, segregation of healthy and infected workers, and daily observation for fever and symptoms. Twenty-four dormitories were declared as 'isolation areas', with residents quarantined for 14 days. New housing, for example, vacant public housing flats, military camps, exhibition centres, floating hotels have been provided that will allow for appropriate social distancing. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted migrant workers as a vulnerable occupational group. Ideally, matters related to inadequate housing of vulnerable migrant workers need to be addressed before a pandemic.

While legislatures typically use majority rule to allocate a budget in distributive legislation, near-unanimous consent over the broad allocation of benefits is pervasive. I develop a game-theoretic model where players strategically interact in a universal coalition to determine allocations, with non-cooperative bargaining as a threat point for the breakdown of cooperation. To quantify the effects of political power and actual needs on the agreed-upon allocation, I structurally estimate the model using the "Bridge Bill Capital Budget" in 1992. I find that 9.58% of the budget would be allocated differently if allocations were determined only based on actual needs.