Suchergebnisse

In this review, the author considers research on race/ethnicity and stratification beliefs, with special focus on beliefs about the causes of poverty in the United States. Stratification beliefs research has traditionally focused on describing what is believed about inequality, demonstrating the antecedents of beliefs, and outlining the consequences of belief adherence for the person, politics, and society. Race and ethnicity matter for Americans' beliefs about poverty in a number of important ways. Research documents that the poor are themselves racialized in the public mind. The racial composition of people's communities has demonstrable effects on how people think about the poor. And race/ethnic group membership is one of the most potent individual-level determinants of beliefs about poverty. Research also documents important consequences of such stratification beliefs, including their impact on people's voting behavior and support for social policies designed to ameliorate racial and other inequalities. The author concludes with suggestions for future research in hopes of advancing our understanding of links between race/ethnicity, stratification ideology, and relevant attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Objective. Lay explanations for "wealth" have been neglected in research on beliefs about social stratification. This study compares the nature and determinants of beliefs about the causes of both wealth and poverty, with special focus on race/ethnic differences.Methods. Using survey data collected from Los Angeles County residents in 2000, descriptive and multivariate procedures are used to analyze "individualistic" and "structuralist" beliefs about wealth and poverty. In addition, one "fatalistic" belief, asking about the role of "God's will" in shaping wealth and poverty, is examined. Analyses test (1) whether race/ethnicity and other social and political characteristics variables shape these stratification beliefs, and (2) whether African Americans, Latinos, and whites differ in the determinants of beliefs about wealth and poverty.Results. Respondents favor individualistic over structuralist reasons for wealth, but favor structuralist over individualistic beliefs in explaining poverty. Fatalistic beliefs are least popular. On beliefs about wealth, African Americans, Latinos, and whites show similar levels of support for individualistic explanations; however, the race/ethnic minorities are both more structuralist than whites on this issue. On beliefs about poverty, the race/ethnic minorities are simultaneously more structuralist and more individualistic than are whites. Social‐class identification and self‐reported conservatism both significantly impact beliefs about wealth and poverty, and do so differently across race/ethnic lines.Conclusions. Findings support the separate treatment and examination of beliefs about wealth and poverty, and reinforce recent calls for greater attention to "nonwhites" in studies of sociopolitical attitudes.

Objective. Lay explanations for "wealth" have been neglected in research on beliefs about social stratification. This study compares the nature & determinants of beliefs about the causes of both wealth & poverty, with special focus on race/ethnic differences. Methods. Using survey data collected from Los Angeles County residents in 2000, descriptive & multivariate procedures are used to analyze "individualistic" & "structuralist" beliefs about wealth & poverty. In addition, one "fatalistic" belief, asking about the role of "God's will" in shaping wealth & poverty, is examined. Analyses test (1) whether race/ethnicity & other social & political characteristics variables shape these stratification beliefs, & (2) whether African Americans, Latinos, & whites differ in the determinants of beliefs about wealth & poverty. Results. Respondents favor individualistic over structuralist reasons for wealth, but favor structuralist over individualistic beliefs in explaining poverty. Fatalistic beliefs are least popular. On beliefs about wealth, African Americans, Latinos, & whites show similar levels of support for individualistic explanations; however, the race/ethnic minorities are both more structuralist than whites on this issue. On beliefs about poverty, the race/ethnic minorities are simultaneously more structuralist & more individualistic than are whites. Social-class identification & self-reported conservatism both significantly impact beliefs about wealth & poverty, & do so differently across race/ethnic lines. Conclusions. Findings support the separate treatment & examination of beliefs about wealth & poverty, & reinforce recent calls for greater attention to "nonwhites" in studies of sociopolitical attitudes. 5 Tables, 48 References. Adapted from the source document.

Objective. Although an expanding literature on "stratification beliefs" has developed over the past three decades, research has neglected relationships between religion and beliefs about poverty and other inequalities. This study examines the relationship between religious affiliation and "individualistic,""structuralist," and "fatalistic" beliefs about the causes of poverty, and compares the beliefs of African Americans, Latinos, and whites. Methods. Survey data collected in 1993 from a sample of southern Californians are used to test whether several religious affiliations (Protestant, Catholic, Jew, "other religion," and nonaffiliation) shape beliefs about poverty after controlling for race/ethnicity, SES, gender, and age. In addition, the question of whether African Americans, Latinos, and whites differ in the effects of key religious affiliations is examined. Results. Significant religious affiliation effects are found, net of sociodemographic controls. Protestants and Catholics are strongest on individualistic beliefs; Jews and followers of "other" religions are strongest on structuralist beliefs; Catholics and Jews are strongest on fatalistic beliefs. Finally, race/ethnic differences are found for the effects of key religious affiliations. Conclusion. The analyses demonstrate "religious factors" shaping beliefs about poverty, and reinforce the growing body of evidence that affiliations such as Protestant and Catholic have distinctive meanings and effects along race/ethnic lines in the United States.

Although an expanding literature on "stratification beliefs" has developed over the past three decades, research has neglected relationships between religion & beliefs about poverty & other inequalities. This study examines the relationship between religious affiliation & "individualistic," "structuralist," & "fatalistic" beliefs about the causes of poverty, & compares the beliefs of African Americans, Latinos, & whites. Survey data collected in 1993 from a sample of southern Californians are used to test whether several religious affiliations (Protestant, Catholic, Jew, "other religion," & nonaffiliation) shape beliefs about poverty after controlling for race/ethnicity, SES, gender, & age. In addition, the question of whether African Americans, Latinos, & whites differ in the effects of key religious affiliations is examined. Significant religious affiliation effects are found, net of sociodemographic controls. Protestants & Catholics are strongest on individualistic beliefs; Jews & followers of "other" religions are strongest on structuralist beliefs; Catholics & Jews are strongest on fatalistic beliefs. Finally, race/ethnic differences are found for the effects of key religious affiliations. The analyses demonstrate "religious factors" shaping beliefs about poverty, & reinforce the growing body of evidence that affiliations such as Protestant & Catholic have distinctive meanings & effects along race/ethnic lines in the US. 3 Tables, 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

Survey data collected in 1993 from a sample of 2,628 southern Californians are used to test whether race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), age, & religion shape "just-world" beliefs &, in addition, whether African Americans, Latinos, & whites differ in the effects of these variables. Significant race/ethnic differences are found, with Latinos showing the strongest support for the belief in a just world & blacks the weakest. Significant differences are also found by SES & gender, with greatest support for just-world beliefs found among men & persons of low SES. Religious affiliation shapes the belief in a just world, but church attendance does not. Finally, race/ethnic differences are found for several determinants of the belief in a just world. Findings suggest that existing knowledge of the belief in a just world reflects a white experience of the world traceable to the neglect of blacks & Latinos in past research. 3 Tables, 52 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this short article, we provide an update and extension of Thomas C. Wilson's study, "Whites' Opposition to Affirmative Action: Rejection of Group-based Preferences as well as Rejection of Blacks." Wilson drew on data from the 1996 General Social Survey (GSS) to revisit a long-standing debate in the racial attitudes literature concerning whether anti-black prejudice (e.g., "new racism") or ostensibly race-neutral opposition to group-based policies generally (i.e., "principled objections") is the primary determinant of whites' opposition to affirmative action in the form of "preferential hiring and promotion for blacks." We analyze data from the 2000–2018 GSS to replicate and extend key aspects of Wilson's work. As in the prior study, we find mixed support for the new racism and principled objections perspectives, providing an important update on white Americans' beliefs about affirmative action for the twenty-first century.

Although much research documents the growth of a "professional middle class" among African Americans over the past several decades, we know comparatively little about how Blacks see themselves in social class terms, and whether this has changed over time. In the current study, we use data from the 1974 to 2010 General Social Surveys to analyze trends in, and the determinants of, Blacks' social class identifications (SCI) over the past four decades. Our results show that Blacks' tendency to identify as "middle class" has increased in concert with Blacks' socioeconomic status (SES) gains since the 1970s. Regarding the determinants of SCI, education and household income appear more consequential than occupational prestige and self-employment in shaping Blacks' self-reports of their own class positions. Finally, we see little evidence of change over time in the relationship between various SES characteristics and SCI, with one exception: Self-employment has become a more potent predictor of Blacks' SCI over the past several decades. Our results provide an important update to our knowledge of the dynamics of SCI among Black Americans. They also raise important questions for future research on the relationship between, and relative impact of, "race" and "class" in shaping Blacks' identities and their orientations toward American society.

The use of drones (or unmanned aerial vehicles, UVAs) in humanitarian action has emerged rapidly in the last decade and continues to expand. These so-called 'humanitarian drones' represent the first wave of robotics applied in the humanitarian and development contexts, providing critical information through mapping of crisis-affected areas and timely delivery of aid supplies to populations in need. Alongside these emergent uses of drones in the aid sector, debates have arisen about potential risks and challenges, presenting diverse perspectives on the ethical, legal, and social implications of humanitarian drones. Guided by the methodology introduced by Arksey and O'Malley, this scoping review offers an assessment of the ethical considerations discussed in the academic and gray literature based on a screening of 1,188 articles, from which we selected and analyzed 47 articles. In particular, we used a hybrid approach of qualitative content analysis, along with quantitative landscape mapping, to inductively develop a typology of ethical considerations associated with humanitarian drones. The results yielded 11 key areas of concern: (1) minimizing harm, (2) maximizing welfare, (3) substantive justice, (4) procedural justice, (5) respect for individuals, (6) respect for communities, (7) regulatory gaps, (8) regulatory dysfunction, (9) perceptions of humanitarian aid and organizations, (10) relations between humanitarian organizations and industry, and (11) the identity of humanitarian aid providers and organizations. Our findings illuminate topics that have been the focus of extensive attention (such as minimizing risks of harm and protecting privacy), traces the evolution of this discussion over time (i.e., an initial focus on mapping drones and the distinction of humanitarian from military use, toward the ethics of cargo drones carrying healthcare supplies and samples), and points to areas that have received less consideration (e.g., whether sustainability and shared benefits will be compromised if private ...