The Relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and Dietary/Lifestyle Choices

This research aims to: (1) examine the construct social dominance orientation (SDO) in a setting that expands group hierarchy to include prejudices and dominance toward animals; (2) compare predictive validity and internal consistency between the 16-item SDO6 and the 4-item SSDO; and (3) test whether the SDO6 and the SSDO scales predict well in a consumer behavior oriented contextual setting. Predictive validity of the SSDO was almost as high as that of the SSD6; internal reliability, however, was considerably lower. Further, as hypothesized, individuals exhibiting lower levels of SDO, as assessed by both SDO6 and SSDO, exhibit lower levels of speciesism as well as higher levels of empathic concern. In addition, as hypothesized, ethical vegans, as compared to carnists, display lower levels of SDO and speciesism, and higher levels of empathic concern.

Methodological approach to risk-assignment for joint ventures in energy industry

The article provides guidance about risk allotment regarding to joint ventures operating in energy industry. Energy industry has been overwhelmed by risk, in compare to other branches. To diminish the chance of failure on international partnership, risk management techniques should be based on methodological principals. The paper presents outlook to risk in response to the stage of a joint project. The methodological approach is structured in accordance with risk group hierarchy received with Delphi evaluation method. Thus, joint ventures parties are allowed to complete an effective review in order to implement risk reduction actions.

Outline of Mimesis, Honor and Dignity in Modern Sport: A Commentary

When reading the masterpiece about “The Agon Motif” by John W. Loy and W. Robert Morford (2019), I was struck by their recurrent reference to the pursuit of honor in agonal sport contests, as it has become common sense to replace honor with dignity in modernity. I take the German social-philosopher Axel Honneth (1995) as a prime example of spelling out the replacement of honor with dignity in what he names “the struggle for recognition”. In a historical perspective, however, it looks like, that dignity can be understood as a distribution of honor rather than as an oppositional concept of honor. Recognition should not only be conceptualized at the categorical level, but also understood in terms of ‘comparative recognition’, which sorts members of a group into an intra-group hierarchy based on their relative merits and, thereby, pave the way for self-esteem (Mark, 2014). Furthermore, Honneth (2008) develops his concept of recognition to a two-level one by including a primordial recognition in terms of mimesis based upon his former concept of basic self-confidence. It is a kind of elementary responsiveness, which always and necessarily contains an element of involuntary openness or devotedness in the bodily-affective sphere. Therefore, I suggest taking mimesis as the precondition of honor into account and understanding dignity as a distribution of honor in the institution of modern sport.

Crystallographic shelves: space-group hierarchy explained

Space groups are classified, according to different criteria, into types, classes, systems and families. Depending on the specific research topic, some of these concepts will be more relevant to the everyday crystallographer than others. Unfortunately, incorrect use of the classification terms often leads to misunderstandings. This article presents the rationale behind the different classification levels.

Baptists in North America

This chapter considers an unlikely trio of groups who opposed the Evangelical Protestant mainstream in nineteenth-century America: the Unitarians, the Quakers, and the Shakers. Each had to navigate two different forms of dissent: the external and the internal. When deciding how best to revise or contradict the hegemonic forms of Protestantism, these groups had certain goals and methods for interacting with those outside their fellowship. In time, they each also had to face a more pernicious adversary, the second generation of dissenters that grew within their own ranks. While these disparate traditions may appear to have little in common, each body faced many of the same questions as they asserted their distinct form of external cultural and religious correction. When articulating a theological vision that went against the mainstream, they had to determine how to serve that particular vision in a culture that did not share their theological views. Some withdrew from contact with outsiders and used their enclaves as a way to practise and preserve their vision of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. On the other hand, there were groups that deliberately sought to model correct religion for others, and thereby hoped to transform other religious groups by disseminating their theological vision beyond the confines of any type of self-imposed seclusion. As the decades passed, though, both sorts of groups were surprised by the inevitable challenges to their founding orthodoxy from within their own membership. This dissent among dissenters was, of course, an outgrowth of the very impulse that stood behind the earlier establishment of the group. Subsequent generations of membership often failed to realize that belonging to a group of dissenters might require adherence to a detailed theological vision. This tension between founding theology and ongoing interpretation could leave a Dissenting group hierarchy in the awkward position of having to restrict innovation, an irony not lost on subsequent generations of members. This chapter asks how Unitarians, Shakers, and Quakers in nineteenth-century America addressed these two aspects of Dissent: external and internal. How did each group perceive their relationship to American culture and other more mainstream religious groups? How did they encounter and negotiate dissent from within their ranks? In each group there was an evolution over the course of the nineteenth century that complicates any interpretation of these multifaceted embodiments of Protestant Dissenting traditions in the United States.

Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies

Whether and how societal structures shape individual psychology is a foundational question of the social sciences. Combining insights from evolutionary biology, economy, and the political and psychological sciences, we identify a central psychological process that functions to sustain group-based hierarchies in human societies. In study 1, we demonstrate that macrolevel structural inequality, impaired population outcomes, socio-political instability, and the risk of violence are reflected in the endorsement of group hegemony at the aggregate population level across 27 countries (n = 41,824): The greater the national inequality, the greater is the endorsement of between-group hierarchy within the population. Using multilevel analyses in study 2, we demonstrate that these psychological group-dominance motives mediate the effects of macrolevel functioning on individual-level attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, across 30 US states (n = 4,613), macrolevel inequality and violence were associated with greater individual-level support of group hegemony. Crucially, this individual-level support, rather than cultural-societal norms, was in turn uniquely associated with greater racism, sexism, welfare opposition, and even willingness to enforce group hegemony violently by participating in ethnic persecution of subordinate out-groups. These findings suggest that societal inequality is reflected in people’s minds as dominance motives that underpin ideologies and actions that ultimately sustain group-based hierarchy.

Gender and Intergroup Helping: Forms of Prosocial Behavior as Differential Social Control Mechanisms for Women and Men

The present research, drawing on the Intergroup Helping as Power Relations Model (Nadler, 2002), investigated the ways in which different forms of helping behavior can strategically affect responses to women and men who display socially valued or devalued characteristics. Participants read scenarios about concrete problems faced by a woman or man in need, who displayed positive (i.e., prosocial) or negative (i.e., antisocial) characteristics, and indicated the extent to which they would be willing to support small tax increases if that money were used to help address the target’s issues. The predicted Target Gender × Target History × Type of Support interaction, controlling for political orientation, was obtained, F(1, 149) = 6.49, p = .012, ηp2 = .04. Participants tended to give less autonomy-oriented (i.e., empowering) help to a man displaying antisocial (vs. prosocial) characteristics, F(1, 36) = 3.39, p = .074, ηp2 = .09.; they also tended to off more dependency-oriented (i.e., disempowering) help to a woman women exhibiting prosocial (vs. antisocial) qualities, F(1, 38) = 3.42, p = .072, ηp2 = .08. The role of seemingly positive forms of social behavior as a mechanism for social control and the relation of helping to processes of group-hierarchy and system-justifying processes are considered.