The Social Acceptability of Peripheral Interaction with 3D Gestures in a Simulated Setting

2020 ◽  
pp. 77-95
Author(s):  
Sara Nielsen ◽  
Lucca Julie Nellemann ◽  
Lars Bo Larsen ◽  
Kashmiri Stec
Keyword(s):  
Social Acceptability ◽  
Peripheral Interaction ◽  
The Social

Reputation versus office: Why populist radical right governmental participation has differed between Sweden and Denmark

2021 ◽  
pp. 019251212110205
Author(s):  
Duncan McDonnell ◽  
Annika Werner ◽  
Malin Karlsson
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Radical Right ◽  
Social Acceptability ◽  
People's Party ◽  
Populist Radical Right ◽  
Chapel Hill ◽  
The Social ◽  
Expert Surveys

Sweden and Denmark have presented contrasting relationships between centre-right and populist radical right (PRR) parties. In Sweden, the centre-right has refused cooperation with the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) (SD), even when this cost the centre-right office. However, in Denmark, coalitions led by centre-right parties have cooperated with the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti) (DF) on multiple occasions. Through a controlled comparison, we examine what explains these different outcomes. Using Chapel Hill Expert Surveys and public opinion data, we firstly look at the policy congruence between parties and the social acceptability of cooperation. We then examine interview material with representatives from centre-right and PRR parties in Sweden and Denmark to see their explanations of cooperation and non-cooperation. We conclude that, while the office goals of Danish centre-right parties, along with the policy focus and uncontroversial past of DF, explain that case, the reputation and past of SD has precluded a similar outcome.

Theories of the food insecurity ‘problem’ and the right to food ‘solution’

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Lambie-Mumford
Keyword(s):  
Food Insecurity ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Social Acceptability ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Right To Food ◽  
The Social ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sufficient Food

Chapter 3 sets out the key theories with which the book engages: food insecurity and the human right to food. Following on from a conceptualisation and definition of food insecurity, the right to food is introduced. Emphasis is placed on normative element of ‘adequacy and sustainability of food availability and access’ and on the state’s obligation to ‘respect, protect and fulfil the right to food’. Theories of ‘othering’ and ‘agency’ are employed to assess the social acceptability of emergency food systems as a means of acquiring food, and the power of providers to make sufficient food available through these systems and of potential recipients to access it. Theories of ‘care’ and ‘social protection’ are employed to explore the ways in which charitable providers are in practice taking responsibility for the duty to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food and how shifts in welfare policy are affecting need for this provision.

Media Discourse on the Social Acceptability of Fecal Transplants

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 1359-1371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim H. Chuong ◽  
Kieran C. O’Doherty ◽  
David M. Secko
Keyword(s):  
Social Acceptability ◽  
Media Discourse ◽  
The Social

scholarly journals Fare Evasion in Public Transport: Grouping Transantiago Users’ Behavior

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (23) ◽  
pp. 6543 ◽  
Author(s):  
González ◽  
Busco ◽  
Codocedo
Keyword(s):  
Public Transport ◽  
Social Acceptability ◽  
Cluster Analyses ◽  
The Public ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
The Social ◽  
Fare Evasion ◽  
Bus System ◽  
Taking Care

A survey was conducted in July 2018 on the public bus system in Santiago, Chile, in which 457 users were asked to respond to a list of 42 statements expressing a range of attitudes on different aspects of the problem of fare evasion. The respondents were first categorized according to whether they had been observed paying or not paying the fare, and their responses were then subjected to separate cluster analyses that partitioned the respondents into groups according to their views on each survey statement. The analyses identified four distinguishable types or groups among those who did not pay the fare—radical, strategic, ambivalent, and accidental evaders—and three groups among those who did pay—proud, empathetic, and circumstantial evaders. The distinguishing factors motivating the decision to pay or not to pay the fare were found generally to reflect values and attitudes or ideologies but were also influenced by users’ perception of the social acceptability of evasion, the presence of anti-evasion measures, and how “organized” they were in taking care to have a farecard with them when planning to take a bus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document