Search

Support for children's rights is greater among children raised in democratic environments. The present two studies examined children's endorsements and predictors of children's rights. Five democratic competences taken from the Council of Europe's Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture served as predictors. We tested the models in a sample of children raised in five European countries and a sample raised in an African country, seeking to extend our model beyond the Global North. In Study 1, we found four of these five competences, namely, higher valuing of cultural diversity, civic‐mindedness, cultural openness and empathy significantly predicted higher endorsements of rights in children from Bulgaria, Italy, Norway, Romania and Spain (7–11‐year‐olds; N = 292). In Study 2, we found higher valuing of cultural diversity significantly predicted higher endorsements of rights in Nigerian children (7–14‐year‐olds; N = 84). Supporting Social Cognitive Domain Theory, children in both studies endorsed nurturance rights more than self‐determination rights. Inclusion of children from the Global North and South enabled us to determine whether patterns of rights endorsements were similar for children from both samples. Overall, this research presents novel findings on the salience of valuing cultural diversity in support for children's rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic has impacted the world in many ways; for example, evidence from the United Kingdom indicates that higher rates of discriminatory behaviours against immigrants have been recorded during this period. Prior research suggests that political orientation and trust are instrumental in discriminatory beliefs against immigrants. A longitudinal study (six waves and a follow‐up) was conducted in the United Kingdom during the COVID‐19 pandemic (September 2020–August 2021) using convenience sampling (N = 383). The hypotheses enquired about whether political orientation predicts trust in government, trust in science and discriminatory beliefs. Multilevel regression and mediation analyses were conducted, using repeated measures nested within individuals. It was found that conservative views are associated with higher discriminatory beliefs, lower trust in science and higher trust in government. Furthermore, trust in science promotes reduction of discrimination, whereas trust in government, increases discriminatory beliefs. However, a nuance revealed by an interaction effect, shows that a positive alignment between political and scientific authorities may be required to reduce prejudice against immigrants. Exploratory multilevel mediation showed that trust is a mediator between political orientation and discriminatory beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breastfeeding has many known benefits, but rates vary globally. We propose two main reasons why psychological theory and interventions have not been successful to date in explaining breastfeeding behaviours. Specifically, prior research underestimates the importance of (1) specific emotions and (2) wider injunctive influences (i.e., societal and moral norms about what women feel they ought to be doing) in the breastfeeding experience. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies that explored whether injunctive norms and/ or specific emotions are associated with breastfeeding behaviours (i.e., intentions, initiation and duration). Seventy-two papers were included in this review; data were extracted and quality appraisals conducted for all included studies. A meta-analysis of effect sizes was performed with the quantitative data. A convergent qualitative synthesis of the data was conducted, resulting in the following line of argument: Breastfeeding is a social behaviour and not a personal/individual behaviour. From this line of argument, three themes with associated sub-themes were developed, highlighting the importance of both specific emotions and injunctive norms on breastfeeding behaviours. These influences are discussed in relation to both theoretical and practical implications, as well as future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anger and disgust may have distinct roles in sexual morality; here, we tested hypotheses regarding the distinct foci, appraisals, and motivations of anger and disgust within the context of sexual offenses. We conducted four experiments in which we manipulated whether mutual consent (Studies 1–3) or desire (Study 4) was present or absent within a counter-normative sexual act. We found that anger is focused on the injustice of non-consensual sexual acts, and the transgressor of the injustice (Studies 1 and 3). Furthermore, the sexual nature of the act was not critical for the elicitation of anger—as anger also responded to unjust acts of violence (Study 3). By contrast, we hypothesised and found that disgust is focused on whether or not a person voluntarily engaged in, desired or consented to a counter-normative sexual act (Studies 2–4). Appraisals of abnormality and degradation were the primary appraisals of disgust, and the sexual nature of the act was a critical elicitor of disgust (Study 3). A final study ruled out victimisation as the mechanism of the effect of consent on disgust and indicated that the consenter's sexual desire was the mechanism (Study 4). Our results reveal that anger and disgust have differential roles in consent-related sexual offenses due to the distinct appraisals and foci of these emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]