Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
In: Problems of economics, Band 32, Heft 4, S. 40-55
SSRN
Working paper
In: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 9456
SSRN
Working paper
In: The black scholar: journal of black studies and research, Band 16, Heft 5, S. 1-1
ISSN: 2162-5387
In: Open Journal of Acoustics, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 10-17
The first part of this article addresses the main premise of the Theory of Musical
Equilibration. It states that in contrast to previous hypotheses, music does
not directly describe emotions: instead; it evokes processes of the will which
the listener identifies with. It is not until these processes are experienced that
music appears to take on an emotional character. The second part of the article
focuses on demonstrating the emotional nature of musical harmonies.
The Basic Test and the Rocky Test are presented. These tests were designed to
find correlations between chords and scenes from fairy tales as well as emotional
terms. 86% of the participants correlated the musical selection to the
emotion outlined by the Theory of Musical Equilibration the authors developed
in this context.
Blog: Rodger A. Payne's Blog
I used some "Feeling Thermometer" data in a class recently and was struck by an insane result reflected in the recent data. You'll see that below, where I've linked to the original polling agency, First, definition: A "Feeling Thermometer" is a commonly used research measure. Here's a reasonable definition from a recent piece of scholarship:The feeling thermometer, or thermometer scale, is a rating procedure to measure respondents' feelings about an issue using a scale that corresponds or makes a metaphor to temperatures in the thermometer.Political scientists often derive these numbers via public opinion polling. Sometimes, respondents are specifically asked to provide a number on a scale (0 to 100 is typical) and the results reflect averages, often broken down by specific demographic information.For example, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs asks Americans in a regular poll what they think about foreign countries. As this data reveals, Americans feel quite warmly about Canadians, but have quite cold feelings about North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China. Likely not coincidentally, these are four states specifically identified as threats to American interests in the Director of National Intelligence's annual (public) assessment report. Question for another day: which way does the causal arrow run?With those numbers in the 19 to 32 range in mind (and 85 for Canada), take a look at this next polling result, showing how Americans feel about other Americans -- limited by their political party. Americans like other Americans of the same political party just a little less than they like Canadians.And Americans' feelings about members of the opposing political party are comparable to their feelings about North Korea!Some recent political science research is particularly interesting about the meaning of such data, suggesting that these positive and negative feelings can have real-world consequences, at least in international politics:This research note utilizes novel country feeling thermometer data to explore the [Democratic Peace Theory] debate's micro-foundations: the underlying drivers of international amity and enmity among democratic citizens in the US, UK, France, and Germany.No wonder some scholars are studying the allegedly growing risk of American civil war.
Visit this blog's homepage.
For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.
Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.
In: Contributions to Phenomenology, In Cooperation with The Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology 107
In: Springer eBooks
In: Religion and Philosophy
Chapter 1. Introduction -- Part I. Self-Consciousness -- Chapter 2. A Brief Overview of Philosophy of Self-Consciousness -- Chapter 3. Challenges in Current Philosophy of Self-Consciousness – The Heidelberg School -- Chapter 4. The Affective Turn -- Part II. Affectivity -- Chapter 5. A Brief Overview of Philosophy of Human Affectivity -- Chapter 6. Matthew Ratcliffe's Theory of Existential Feelings -- Chapter 7. Stephan and Slaby´s Complementary Work -- Part III. Self-Feeling -- Chapter 8. The Features of Self-Feeling -- Chapter 9. How this Account of Self-Feeling Contributes to Today´s Debates -- Chapter 10. Self-Feeling and Unity -- Chapter 11. Appropriateness of Self-Feeling -- Part IV. Self-Feeling and Thought: Self-Interpretation -- Chapter 12. Self-Interpretation -- Chapter 13. Appropriateness and Inappropriateness in Self-Interpretation -- Chapter 14. Authenticity
In: The Oxford literary review: OLR ; critical analyses of literary, philosophical political and psychoanalytic theory, Band 36, Heft 1, S. 49-61
ISSN: 1757-1634
Is there a feeling of life, and if so, can deconstruction contribute to its elucidation? What is a deconstructionist's 'feeling of life'? If one takes Derrida's argument about iterability as an argument about life, then one could perhaps infer from it that life, for the deconstructionist, is the occurrence, or the event, of what always occurs only once because it occurs more than once, and of what always occurs more than once because it occurs only once. One could infer from it that life cannot be told apart from a feeling of life, from a certain expressive intensity, since life is tension, a tension between an 'only-once' and a 'once-more', between an 'only-once' haunted by a 'once-more' and a 'once-more' haunted by an 'only-once', a tension that prompts each of the terms to change into the other.
1. Postfeminist Sensibility as a Structure of Feeling -- 2. Gender, Race, Nation… and Barbie Savior -- 3. Sweat Is Just Fat Crying -- 4. Making-Up Enterprising Selves -- 5. Hot Men on the Commute -- 6. Cute! Cats! Intimacies of the Internet -- 7. Epilogue: Digital Feeling.
In this article, we present an analysis of how communities of maternal feeling are configured by users on the discussion boards of Mumsnet, a popular British online parenting forum. A search was conducted to find threads with the phrase 'I feel' in the title. The first 100 threads in the search results using this term that referred to emotions - almost all of which articulated negative feelings - were then analysed. We argue that forums like Mumsnet provide an important anonymous space where women can talk openly about emotions. In doing so, feeling rules related to 'good motherhood' are established and reproduced. Members of Mumsnet tolerate some expression of feelings such as ambivalence, resentment, anxiety and anger and often provide empathy and friendly support in response. However, the expression of negative maternal feeling is tolerated only to a certain degree. Those posters who go beyond this boundary are positioned as exceeding the norm and requiring professional help. Forums such as Mumsnet often serve to support rather than challenge the political status quo in their emphasis on self-responsibility, personal choice and therapeutic solutions to what are positioned as private problems.
BASE
In: Tavistock Clinic Ser.
In: The Tavistock Clinic Series
Which ""forms of feeling"" are facilitated and which discouraged within the cultures and structures of modern state welfare? This book illuminates the social and psychic dynamics of these new public cultures of welfare, locating them in relation to our understanding of borderline states of mind in individuals, organizations and society. Part of the Tavistock Clinic Series
In: Divorce and Your Family
In: Divorce and Your Family Ser.
It was not so long ago that divorce was considered scandalous, and children of divorced parents lived with the shame of coming from a "broken home." Though much more common today, divorce still comes with a number of confusing emotions. This resource instructs teens about the changes they should expect in their lives, including a new or second home, new responsibilities, and even a new stepparent and stepsiblings. Readers will also learn how to identify and understand what they are feeling, where to seek help, and how to turn a difficult situation into an opportunity for growth
Blog: Just the social facts, ma'am
A couple of months ago, some people were saying that Donald Trump's favorability ratings rose every time he was indicted (I've forgotten specific references, but I know I saw some). The idea seemed to be that some supporters had been drifting away until their sympathies were reawakened by what they regarded as persecution by the "deep state". Closer examination has shown that this isn't true, that his favorability ratings actually declined slightly after the indictments. But at the time, it occurred to me that the degree of favorability might be more subject to change--shifting from "strongly favorable" to "somewhat favorable" is easier than shifting from favorable to unfavorable--and that the degree of favorability will matter in the race for the nomination. On searching, I found there aren't many questions that ask for degree of favorability, and that breakdowns by party weren't available for most of them. However, the search wasn't useless, because it reminded me of the American National Election Studies "feeling thermometers" for presidential candidates, which ask people to rate the candidates on a scale of zero to 100. Here is the percent rating the major party candidates at zero:With the exception of George McGovern in 1972, everyone was below 10% until 2004, when 13% rated GW Bush at zero. In 2008, things were back to normal, with both Obama and McCain at around 7%, but starting in 2012, zero ratings increased sharply. The next figure shows the percent rating each candidate at 100. There is a lot of variation from one election to the next, but no trend. In 2016, 6.4% rated Trump at 100, which is a little lower than average (and the same as Hillary Clinton). He rose to 15.4% in 2020, which is the second highest ever, just behind Richard Nixon in 1972. But several others have been close, most recently Obama in 2012 and Bush in 2004, and it's not unusual for presidents to have a large increase in their first term (GW Bush, Clinton, and Reagan had similar gains). That is, Trump doesn't seem to have an exceptionally large number of enthusiastic supporters among the public (also see this post). I think his continued strength in the party is mostly the result of Republican elites' reluctance to challenge him, which is a mixture of genuine support and exaggerated ideas about his strength among Republican voters.