Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This research addresses the long-standing debate about the determinants of sex/gender differences. Evolutionary theorists trace many sex/gender differences back to natural selection and sex-specific adaptations. Sociocultural and biosocial theorists, in contrast, emphasize how societal roles and social power contribute to sex/gender differences beyond any biological distinctions. By connecting two empirical advances over the past two decades—6-fold increases in sex/gender difference meta-analyses and in experiments conducted on the psychological effects of power—the current research offers a novel empirical examination of whether power differences play an explanatory role in sex/gender differences. Our analyses assessed whether experimental manipulations of power and sex/gender differences produce similar psychological and behavioral effects. We first identified 59 findings from published experiments on power. We then conducted a P-curve of the experimental power literature and established that it contained evidential value. We next subsumed these effects of power into 11 broad categories and compared them to 102 similar meta-analytic sex/gender differences. We found that high-power individuals and men generally display higher agency, lower communion, more positive self-evaluations, and similar cognitive processes. Overall, 71% (72/102) of the sex/gender differences were consistent with the effects of experimental power differences, whereas only 8% (8/102) were opposite, representing a 9:1 ratio of consistent-to-inconsistent effects. We also tested for discriminant validity by analyzing whether power corresponds more strongly to sex/gender differences than extraversion: although extraversion correlates with power, it has different relationships with sex/gender differences. These results offer novel evidence that many sex/gender differences may be explained, in part, by power differences.

Abstract Current policy‐making assumes people perceive and respond to financial risk in a uniform and rational way. This research sought to investigate whether social and cultural differences along the dimensions of disability, sexuality, faith and ethnicity influence attitudes to money and approaches to planning for possible financial risk eventualities. Eighty in‐depth interviews with individuals committed to different faiths (Muslim and Christian), disabled people, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and members of black and minority ethnic groups (black and Asian) were conducted in 2005/2006. Mainstream cultural reference points were dominant in respondents' accounts; however, difference was also found to be more determining in some areas than has previously been documented. The article explores the impact of these relationships on financial planning and draws out the policy implications of the different elements of difference on financial planning. The study argues that socio‐cultural approaches to risk need to be better understood at the policy‐making level.

This is an edited and translated transcript of a lecture by Niklas Luhmann in which he outlined the foundation of his systems theory based on the notion of difference and distinction. After a brief introduction to early theories of distinction, the central ideas of Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form as the most radical form of differential thinking are presented. For Luhmann's systems theory, this has four important consequences. First, the system is the difference between system and environment. Second, the system can be defined through a single mode of operation. Third, every (social) system observes internally (i.e. within the system) its own system/environment distinction; there is a re-entry of the system/environment distinction into the system. Fourth, every social theory is part of the social domain and as such part of what it describes.

Drawing conceptually from feminist, post–development, cultural politics and radical political science literatures, this essay integrally relates differences among contexts (relationally defined) and people. I suggest that prospects for the mobilization of workers across space requires critical thinking about difference, entailing recognition of different work experiences associated with different industrial processes and avenues of exploitation, as well as possible friction among different groups of people across axes of difference. Although frictions of difference related both to economic and non–economic logics may pose complex problems for connecting workers within and across space, I argue that inclusive organizing strategies are critical to achieving pervasive and long–run social change.Tirant ces concepts de documents sur le post–féminisme et le post–développement, et de textes de politique culturelle et de science politique fondamentale, cet essai associe toutes les différences de contextes (définis en termes de relation) et d'individus. Il suggère que mobiliser des salariés à travers l'espace nécessite une réflexion critique sur la différence, ce qui implique la reconnaissance d'expériences professionnelles diverses combinées à des approches et processus industriels d'exploitation différents, ainsi que d'éventuels points de friction entre divers groupes de personnes d'un bout à l'autre des axes de différence. Même si ces points de friction, liés à une logique tant économique que non–économique, sont susceptibles de créer d'importantes difficultés pour relier des salariés dans l'espace, il faut appliquer des stratégies d'organisation globales si l'on veut obtenir un changement social capable de s'imprégner durablement.

The purpose of this study was to determine the role of individual differences (i.e., belief in a just world and authoritarianism), and attitude (i.e., attitudes toward the criminal legal system), in predicting delinquent behavior. High school students (412 males, 423 females) completed
questionnaires that measured demographics, belief in a just world (BJW), authoritarianism (RWA), attitudes toward the criminal legal system (ATCLS), and delinquent behavior. Two models were assessed in this study. The first was a direct model, which assessed whether individual differences
or attitude best predicted rule-violating behavior. The second was an integrating model, which assessed the role of both factors, individual differences and attitude, as predictors of rule-violating behavior. For male adolescents, the direct model best predicted delinquency, suggesting negative
ATCLS was the sole significant predictor of rule-violating behavior. In contrast, for females, the integrating model best predicted delinquency, as negative ATCLS mediated the negative relation between BJW and delinquency, and partially mediated the negative relation between RWA and delinquency.
The implications of gender differences in predicting delinquent behavior are discussed.