Suchergebnisse

Chapman & Huffman (C & H) might be taken to argue as follows: Humans may treat animals however they want only if humans are superior to animals. But humans are not superior to animals. Therefore, humans may not treat animals however they want. Whatever its merit, this is not C & H's actual argument. Their point, instead, is that humans often mistreat animals because they tend to perceive them as inferior. A remedy for animal mistreatment would then be acknowledging the deep similarities between us and animals. But is C & H's suggested remedy likely to be effective to foster respect for animals?

The ideas contained in Huntington's article, "Clash of Civilization?", are provoking. Since its publication in Foreign Affairs (summer 1993), several responses have appeared in the media world-wide. In this home country, Huntington's article was critized from various angles. His assumptions, model, data and even his potition were scrutunized mostly by social scientists and Islamicist. These criticisms, however, highlight the article's significant importance in the debates of political and cultural problems faced in the post-cold war world.DOI:10.15408/sdi.v1i1.869

Conservation in the city is challenging because of a continued view that the urban realm is antithetical to nature. This was clearly the case when the first Swiss National Park was established at the beginning of the 20th century. New Swiss legislation brought new approaches to the establishment of natural parks, in particular by including human activities as a logical component in their development. In 2010, a Federal think tank discussed opportunities for launching a new kind of park: the Urban Natural Park. This paper reports an analysis of this discussion, together with the study of the literature dealing with conservation in the city and natural parks. It shows that a clear antagonism between city and nature still remains present, reflected in an implicit hierarchy hidden in the designation of natural parks: wild nature is nominated as the best nature; if not wild, the best nature is identified as rural; if neither wild nor rural, nature is thought not to be the concern of natural park policy. The Swiss Biodiversity Strategy implemented in 2012 is a recent recognition of the importance of urban nature for biodiversity conservation. This recognition, however, condemns urban nature to a special status, situated outside the usual framework of conservation management. I conclude by arguing that anti-urban bias must be addressed because it inhibits effective conservation strategy, prevents the identification of existing environmental qualities of cities and, eventually, has negative impacts on biological conservation outside the city because it fosters urban spreading.

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context—exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context—exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context—exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

Although research has revealed that more progressive LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) rights are positively associated with more favorable attitudes toward sexual minorities, little is known about why LGB rights co-occur with positive attitudes. The present contribution fills this gap by testing whether the prevalence of intergroup contact with LGB individuals explains the relationship between more progressive LGB rights and sexual prejudice. Utilizing representative Eurobarometer data from 28 European Union Member States, we find that progressive institutional arrangements positively predict favorable attitudes toward sexual minorities by rendering intergroup contact with LGB individuals more commonplace. Importantly, this pattern of findings replicates for different measures of prejudice and LGB-related legislation. The theoretical and practical implications of the current findings are discussed.

La comunidad trans está siendo objeto de debate en la actualidad debido a los cambios legislativos que se están proponiendo para garantizar su protección. A lo largo de la historia, este colectivo se ha patologizado y estigmatizado provocando una discriminación en ámbitos sociales, laborales, sanitarios, etc. Aunque se haya avanzado en cuanto a la estigmatización, la opresión sufrida por la sociedad genera aún hoy que estas personas sean más propensas a tener problemas de salud y más dificultades en obtener las mismas oportunidades que la población general. Por lo tanto, evaluamos las actitudes y comportamientos discriminatorios hacia las personas trans en la sociedad española en personas que no pertenecen a dicho colectivo. En este estudio, se llevó a cabo una investigación con mayores de edad, de cualquier orientación sexual en la que se usa la Escala de Actitudes Negativas hacia las personas Trans (EANT) y la Escala de Ideología de Género y Transfobia (GTS). En general, las cifras de aceptación de este colectivo en España son mayores que en otros países del mundo ya que las políticas de este país así lo reflejan, encontrando entre nuestros resultados que quienes exponen tener una ideología política de izquierdas, las personas que no se definen como heterosexuales y las que pertenecen al grupo de edad más joven son quienes menos discriminación ejercen sobre el colectivo trans.

Using the two-dimensional model (Son Hing et al., 2008) of prejudice as a guide, we sampled 10,522 people to examine the geographic distribution of prejudice toward African Americans in the United States. We found the East South Central, West South Central, and South Atlantic regions were associated with modern racism (MR), principled conservatism (PC) characterized the Mountain region, aversive racism (AR) was prevalent in the East North Central region, and finally, truly low in prejudice (TLP) was found in the Pacific, West North Central, Mid Atlantic, and New England regions. Consistent with the two-dimensional model, those high in MR and PC self-identified as more politically conservative than those high in AR or TLP. On social conservatism, MR scored higher than AR, and AR and PC were higher than TLP. In addition, MR scored lower in egalitarianism than AR, while PC and AR scored lower in egalitarianism than TLP. However, contrary to the two-dimensional model, MR and PC did not differ on egalitarianism or social conservatism. Therefore, results generally supported the distinctions made by the two-dimensional model, although further investigations are needed to determine whether there is sufficient theoretical justification for distinguishing MR and PC. This preliminary mapping of the different types of prejudice toward African Americans provides researchers with a tool to test theoretical differences between unique types of prejudice and examine multiple outcomes related to regional prejudice. Given that regional prejudice can be identified, prejudice reduction efforts may benefit from targeting both the individual and the community.

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context - exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context—exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti‐conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context – exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti‐conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

This article examines the Opinion of AG Rantos in two cases concerning Islamic headscarves before the CJEU and argues that this Opinion appears to give almost carte blanche to (private) employers to adopt neutrality policies in their workplaces based on the wishes of their customers. In doing so, the AG appears to allow employers to pander to the prejudices of their customers and to push believers, and especially Muslim women, even further out of sight. It is argued that this affects not only the employment opportunities, but also the social inclusion of people from groups especially vulnerable to discrimination and that this goes against the founding values of the EU. The CJEU now has a choice: it can choose to protect the fundamental rights of religious minorities by taking these rights into account when assessing the two cases before it, or it can allow employers to pander to the prejudice of customers against people from religious minorities.

One of the most heated sports debates in recent history has been the politically tangled NFL Kneeling protest. Since the 2016 NFL preseason, many football players took up kneeling during the national anthem as a form of silent protest to voice their opinions on systemic inequality that individuals faced in the United States. We are interested to see if our survey respondents' support of the actions of the players and whether or not they would like the NFL commissioner to take action against the players that participated in the protest. Furthermore, we want to see if respondents' answers vary depending on their party affiliation. Our study's results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between party affiliation and support of the players' actions. In addition, we also found a statistically significant difference between party affiliation and the commissioner taking action.

It is widely believed that the impact of fake news, internet rumors, hoaxes, deceptive memes etc. are spilling into the physical world from the virtual world. In fact, social media has had a significant role in the origination and spread of such deceptive communication, as social media users often lack awareness of the intentional manipulation of online content and are easily tricked into believing unverifiable content. In an increasingly polarized world where social media and the internet have pushed people to live inside "echo chambers" and "filter bubbles," people consciously and unconsciously are exposed only to content that reinforce their confirmation bias. In such a scenario, people only agree with content that aligns with their preexisting beliefs and disagree with or label as "fake" content that is opposed to their worldview. This paper proposes to study the psychological differences that cause people to either agree or disagree with such prejudiced and ideologically oriented online disinformation.