Suchergebnisse

What is the basis for intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a universal theory about what causes intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism, political intolerance (e.g. restriction of free speech), moral intolerance (e.g. homophobia, supporting censorship, opposing abortion) and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ('authoritarianism') interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, resonant particularly in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include national economic downturn, rapidly rising crime rates, civil dissent and unrest, loss of confidence in social institutions, presidential unpopularity, divisive presidential campaigns, and internal or external crises that undermine national pride or confidence. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of intolerance

There has been a long history of work on authoritarianism that has looked at the role of societal threat. Much of the empirical research in this tradition has relied on aggregate data to examine the relationship between societal threat and authoritarian attitudes and behaviors. Our analysis uses individual‐level data and a range of perceived threat measures to better understand the dynamics of authoritarianism and threat. We also move beyond the hypothesis of a direct relationship between threat and authoritarianism, and hypothesize instead that the relationship involves interaction effects: societal threat activates authoritarian predispositions. As predicted, our analysis finds no evidence of a direct effect of societal threat but significant evidence of an interaction between authoritarian predispositions and perceived threat. We consider the implications of these results for our understanding of authoritarianism.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workforces are currently facing multiple challenges, including aging populations; increasing prevalence of long-term conditions; and shortfall of registered nurses. Employing non-registered support workers is common across many countries to expand service capacity of nursing teams. One task delegated to non-registered support workers is medication administration, which is considered a complex task, with associated risks. This is an important topic given the predicted global increase in patients requiring assistance with medication in community settings. This review explores the evidence on delegation of medication administration from registered nurse to non-registered support workers within community settings, to better understand factors that influence the process of delegation and its impact on service delivery and patient care. METHODS: The review followed key principles of Critical Interpretative Synthesis and was structured around Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and ProQuest-British Nursing Index databases. Twenty studies were included. RESULTS: Findings are reported under four themes: 1, Regulatory and contextual factors; 2, Individual and team level factors; 3, Outcomes of delegation; and 4, Process of implementation and evaluation. Delegation was found to be a complex phenomenon, influenced by a myriad of interconnecting factors at the macro, meso, micro level. At the macro level, the consistency and clarity of government and state level regulations was found to facilitate or impede delegation of medication administration. Lack of clarity at the macro level, impacted at meso and micro levels, resulting in confusion around what medication administration could be delegated and who held responsibility. At the micro level, central to the interpretation of success was the relationship between the delegator and delegatee. This relationship was influenced by personal views, ...

Toleration on Trial offers the only multidisciplinary study available on the issue of toleration, in the context of deep and difficult conflicts over ideological, cultural, and identity issues in today's mobilized political environment. The importance of individual attitudes and institutional/cultural arrangements is explored as a central axis in the meaning of toleration as a principle and practically in relation to demands for toleration of religious expression, gay rights, and the Islamic sources of toleration