Changing Attitudes Through Social Influence: Does Social Distance Matter?

ABSTRACT

To test the effects of social influence and social distance on attitudes, we assessed judgments of gay and lesbian targets in various contexts over three studies (n = 814, 51% female). We compared the impact of a derogatory message to a relatively favorable message ostensibly written by another participant. Participants were robustly moved by the feedback; social influence was a significant predictor in final evaluations of the target, as was social distance. Discrimination against gay men and lesbian women appears not to be a fixed behavior; seemingly anyone can be persuaded to discriminate or not to discriminate by mere peer suggestion.     

当代中国文艺美学研究的三种形态

文章从当代中国文艺美学的研究现状出发,通过对众多理论学人对文艺美学的研究成果和学术观点的分析,来展现文艺美学研究在当代中国的三种不同研究形态,着重点出了文艺美学学科在当代中国语境中的重要性。     

The price of youth: commodification of young people through malleable risk practices

Risk has become a dominant part of theory and practice in young people's services over the past 30 years [Kemshall, H. 2008. “Risk, Rights and Justice: Understanding and Responding to Youth Risk.” Youth Justice 8 (1): 21–37; Goldson, G. 2000. “Children in Need’ or ‘Young Offenders’? Hardening ideology, organizational change and new challenges for social work with children in trouble.” Child and Family Social Work 5 (3): 255–265]. Young people are simultaneously described as ‘at-risk’ and risky, ‘permanent suspects’ [Mcara, L., and S. Mcvie. 2005. “The usual suspects? Street-life, young people and the police.” Criminal Justice 5 (1): 5–36] with the potential for committing crime, using drugs, being sexually promiscuous or under-performing in the socio-economic climate [Turnbull, G., and J. Spence. 2011. “What's at risk? The proliferation of risk across child and youth policy in England.” Journal of Youth Studies 14 (8): 939–959]. This paper reports on a UK study of youth practitioners’ perceptions of young people in relation to ‘risk’ and how this affects practice. Findings identify a context where practitioners engage with notions of young people as at-risk or risky, managing tensions between external constructions and the ‘real’ individual on an on-going basis. ‘Risk’ becomes malleable, with young people's risk biographies being amplified or attenuated on the basis of the practitioner's view of needs, resource allocations, contracts, targets, practitioner or organisational fears, risk management processes, and the desire to get the best for the young person. Whilst of short-term benefit, this commodification of young people is counter-productive, magnifying the construction of youth as risky others. The paper calls for new approaches to challenge the continued dominance of the youth risk paradigm in practice, policy and the academic youth studies field.