WOMEN'S ATTITUDES TOWARD MEN An Integrated Threat Theory Approach

Three studies were conducted to measure the antecedents of women's attitudes toward men using the integrated threat model. Four types of threats were hypothesized to produce negative attitudes toward men: (1) realistic threat based on threats to women's political and economic power, (2) symbolic threat based on value differences, (3) intergroup anxiety experienced during social interaction with outgroup members, and (4) negative stereotypes of men. Negative contact was hypothesized to increase the perception of all four threats as well as to affect attitudes directly. The findings suggest that symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative contact are the strongest predictors of negative attitudes toward men. Contrary to expectation, realistic threat may not be important to women's attitudes toward men.     

Holiness in the Making

In this essay, I will argue that a political theology of human work can provide the sacramental principle underlying the theology of labor. This principle could complement the foundations of Catholic social teaching, since the sacramental aspects of work have not been made very explicit in the ethical framework of the Church's theology of work. The view of labor as the active participation in God's future is an important aspect of such a theology. In order to serve as a foundation for faith‐based labor organizing, I will claim that it needs to be complemented by a sacramental view of labor as art, a labor‐aesthetic that undergirds a labor‐ethic, in which labor itself becomes a sign and instrument of the way the Church becomes God's work in the world. First, I will sketch an outline of some of the major positions on labor in modern Catholic theology. Then, I will draw on the writings of the British poet and painter David Jones to explore a sacramental view of human work, arguing that a sacramental view of work could support the Church's social criticism of laborer's circumstances.     

Advancing the Applied Psychology of Inclusion and Diversity: A Special Issue by Fons van de Vijver

This introduction to the special issue outlines key issues in research on inclusion—as the process of recognizing an individual’s needs for both belonging and distinctiveness. Whereas past research often focuses on diversity in relation to discrimination, this special issue attempts to offer a positive lens and asks how we can build inclusive societies. The answers range from emphasizing similarities based on multiple group memberships (intersectionality); creating inclusive workplaces by nurturing leadership that is authentic, respectful, creating belonging and valuing individuals’ unique contributions (ideas, skills, etc.); to developing bridging social capital as a means of cultural integration (vs. separation). The methodological approaches employed by the contributions in this special issue include an experimental vignette study, comparative studies of different ethnicities within a country and cross-culturally comparative work spanning multiple countries. The special issue is dedicated to the memory of Fons van de Vijver, who had initiated the special issue and sadly died last year.     

Editing the Reactive Genome: Towards a Postgenomic Ethics of Germline Editing

The reported birth of genetically modified twins in late 2018 has given new fuel to debates about the ethics of germline genome editing (GGE). There is a broad consensus among stakeholders that clinical uses of GGE should be temporarily banned as the technology is not yet deemed safe for use in humans. However, the idea of a complete ban is dismissed by many based on the expectation that more research will eventually allow scientists to make the technology safe without having to put humans at risk first. In this article, I will analyse this assumption and argue that it is undermined by recent developments in the postgenomic life sciences. In particular, I will argue that in a postgenomic view of germline editing a complete ban on specific uses of the technology is warranted, because the research needed to assess the safety of these interventions would not be morally defensible.