Search

After learning of the rape allegation against the Attorney-General, Australians were divided in their support for an inquiry. We hypothesised that motivated reasoning on this issue would be associated with ideological preferences. We therefore examined whether perceptions of arguments about the inquiry could be explained by participants' political orientation, preference for hierarchy (SDO), and motivation to justify the gender status quo (GSJ). Three months after the allegation was made public, we recruited a gender-balanced sample of 554 Australians to complete an online survey. Participants believed that an article arguing for an inquiry was stronger than an article arguing against an inquiry. However, this effect was weaker among those on the right of the political spectrum and those high on SDO. Political orientation was also associated with differing evaluations of the article's authors: left-leaning participants found the pro-inquiry author more credible, but right-leaning participants did not. GSJ was not associated with differing evaluations of the articles or their authors. These findings suggest that ideological preferences are associated with motivated reasoning when evaluating partisan allegations of sexual misconduct. Evaluations of such allegations appear to vary according to people's political attitudes and preferences for social equality or hierarchy. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: (1) In early 2021, Australians were deeply divided in their support for an inquiry into the rape allegation against Christian Porter. (2) Individuals tend to respond to political sexual misconduct allegations with a partisan bias. (3) Gender system justification (GSJ) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are associated with the denial of injustice towards women, and the maintenance of social hierarchies, respectively. What this topic adds: (1) Ideological preferences can help to explain how people evaluate arguments about the inquiry. (2) Participants on the political left and those low on SDO evaluated a pro-inquiry article as significantly stronger than the anti-inquiry article, but this effect was reduced amongst those on the right and those high on SDO. (3) These findings provide evidence that political orientation and SDO are associated with motivated reasoning when evaluating partisan allegations of sexual misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With deliberative democracy becoming increasingly incorporated into political processes, the instances of citizens and politicians meeting in deliberation, so-called mixed deliberations, is increasing too. While these are important steps towards more deliberative systems, the mixed deliberation setting nonetheless introduces certain risks regarding equality. Citizens and politicians have different deliberative capacities, which could affect the process of deliberation. Moreover, political inequalities such as gender gaps may be more evident in deliberations where politicians are present. This study focuses on a series of mixed deliberations in 2018 about a proposed municipal merger in Finland. Using content analysis of speech acts (N = 3404) as well as pre- and post-deliberation surveys (N = 225), we analyze patterns according to participant status (politician/citizen) and gender regarding dominance, deliberative discussion quality, and impact on internal and external efficacy. The findings show that politicians dominated the discussions and achieved a higher deliberative quality than citizens. The findings also revealed that women achieved higher deliberative quality in their speech acts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on psychological study on intergroup conflicts and emotional psychology related to it for development of power relations. Topics discussed include requirement of positive collective identity, social environment based on social equality, and predictions related to social dominance.

In a relatively short time span, issues of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity have become central topics of discussion in various nations. As a result, the role of broad ideologies that frame and structure relations between groups has received increasing attention by social psychologists. Of particular concern has been the role of these intergroup ideologies in promoting intergroup harmony and reducing prejudice. In this article, we appraise the evidence related to three main intergroup ideologies, assimilation, colourblindness, and multiculturalism. We argue that research in this area has paid insufficient attention to the social and political context. Intergroup ideologies have been studied and conceptualised as being located solely within individual minds. We suggest that the potentially vital aspect of these ideologies is that they are sometimes widely shared by members of a social group. Integrating sociological and political analyses, we discuss the fact that intergroup ideologies are institutionalised aspoliciesand that, as such, they often vary across countries and across time. We present a series of studies to illustrate the theoretical implications of studying the shared nature of these intergroup ideologies, providing insights into the question of when and why national policies can shape individuals’ intergroup attitudes and beliefs and improve intergroup relations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

I propose a principle of non-domination as a benchmark for assessing the justifiability of unequal residence statuses for non-nationals in liberal democracies. This has advantages over the principles of equality and rights alike, in accommodating both the inclusive and exclusive logics of liberal democratic citizenship. Non-domination requires the state to grant upon first admission a degree of inclusion in the social privileges of citizenship that is sufficient to guard against the most severe forms of domination in social relationships. However, as resident non-nationals become more permanent and come to be in relationships open to other, if less severe forms of domination, it requires gradually increasing the degree of inclusion, over time, to protect non-nationals against these forms of domination also, and, finally, eventually giving them access to the sites of political decision-making that contribute to shaping the background conditions for independent action in social relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

There appears to be a high degree of public tolerance for celebrities who misbehave and break the law. This has given rise to concerns that celebrities are bad role models who are glamorizing antisocial behaviour. However, it would be wrong to suggest that celebrity antics are uniformly tolerated and accepted by the public. The reputation of some celebrities is undoubtedly seriously affected when they breach moral, legal and social codes, while other celebrities suffer few adverse effects. This paper examines the importance of gender and class in ascertaining the limits of permissiveness that apply to celebrity wrongdoing. Female celebrities of a lower-class status are often subjected to very high levels of public scrutiny and punitive media commentary. This point will be illustrated with reference to the British reality TV star Jade Goody and her fall from grace following public outcry about her treatment of her co-contestant Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother 2007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Elizabeth Cady Stanton is widely regarded as one of the most important women's rights orators of the nineteenth century. She is credited with opening new rhetorical spaces for women through brilliant rhetorical appeals. In her 1854 speech to the Legislature of New York, however, her brilliant rhetorical appeals were also appeals to the racist, classist, and paternalistic biases of her white male audience. A paradox of social reform is the need to simultaneously assert difference and sameness with the dominant classes, and Cady Stanton's efforts to negotiate this paradox ultimately reinforced the social hierarchy she hoped to undermine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theory and research dealing with the consequences of rank inconsistency have concerned themselves almost exclusively with the portrayal of the disagreeable aspects of this situation and with the identification of relatively extreme reactions to it. The data reported above serve to counterbalance this emphasis by suggesting circumstances under which rank inconsistency may be accommodated to without a radical reaction and under which this inconsistency may even be downright palatable. First, the data showed one instance where the inconsistent individual's preoccupation with the area of endeavor in which he held his higher rank led him to be tolerant of his lower one. Secondly, we saw that three different kinds of rank inconsistency produced discontent with the lower rank only for respondents whose array of ranks was likely to be highly visible. It is hoped that the modifications of rank inconsistency theory suggested above will in the near future be subjected to a more ideal empirical test than was possible with the data employed in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]