Introduction: education and migration

ABSTRACT

This introduction expounds educational problems that arise from transnational migration. It argues that it is high time to critically analyze normative issues of and in education under conditions of globalization because dominant approaches in normative philosophy of education tend to suffer from both a nationalist bias and a sedentary bias. The contributions to this special issue address normative problems pertaining to migration-related education from a variety of ethical and philosophical perspectives, including analytic applied ethics, continental philosophy, care ethics, Hegelian philosophy, the capability approach and theories of distributive justice. They discuss the education of both citizens and migrants in the receiving society as well as in the country of origin, focusing on ethical issues pertaining to access to education as well as to the content of educational programs.     

Approach-avoidance,attentional and evaluation biases in hair pulling disorder and their relationship with symptom severity

The present study examined approach-avoidance, attentional and evaluation biases in Hair Pulling Disorder (HPD). Although none of the tasks showed indications of biased action tendencies in response to hair pulling-related pictures, or biased attention for hair pulling-related words, we found that patients were slower to react to hair pulling-related stimuli than to neutral stimuli. This slowing down may indicate that patients are ambivalent towards hair pulling. This “ambivalence” positively correlated with HPD symptom severity, but only on one of the three severity measures we assessed. Concerning action tendencies towards hair pulling-related words, patients were, however, faster to react to hair pulling-related words when compared to words related to resisting hair pulling. Future research is needed to disentangle this ambivalent response pattern in HPD.     

Evaluating performance over time: Is improving better than being consistently good?

In many decision contexts, people evaluate others based on intertemporal performance records and commonly face a choice between two distinct profiles: performance that is consistently high versus performance that improves over time to that high level. We proposed that these two profiles could be appealing for different reasons, and thus evaluators’ preferences will differ across decision contexts. In three studies, participants were presented with candidates (e.g., students, employees) displaying the two profiles, and evaluated each candidate in terms of performance, future expectations, and deservingness. The consistent candidate was rated higher on performance, but lower on future expectations, than the improved candidate. Consequently, in achievement-based decisions (e.g., selecting a student for a scholarship), the consistent candidate was viewed as most deserving, whereas in potential-based decisions (e.g., selecting an employee for promotion), the improved candidate was preferred. These effects were mediated by the relative weight that evaluators placed on performance and future expectations.     

Prototypes and same-gender bias in perceptions of hiring discrimination

The present study investigated the relative importance of two explanations behind perceptions of gender discrimination in hiring: prototypes and same-gender bias. According to the prototype explanation, people perceive an event as discrimination to the extent that it fits their preconceptions of typical discrimination. In contrast, the same-gender bias explanation asserts that people more readily detect discrimination toward members of their own gender. In four experiments (n = 797), women and men made considerably stronger discrimination attributions, and were moderately more discouraged from seeking work, when the victim was female rather than male. Further, a series of regressions analyses showed beliefs in discrimination of women to be moderately correlated with discrimination attributions of female victims, but little added explanatory value of participant gender, stigma consciousness, or feminist identification. The results offer strong support for the prototype explanation.     

Attentional bias during emotional processing: evidence from an emotional flanker task using IAPS

Attention is biased towards threat-related stimuli. In three experiments, we investigated the mechanisms, processes, and time course of this processing bias. An emotional flanker task simultaneously presented affective or neutral pictures from the international affective picture system database either as central response-relevant stimuli or surrounding response-uninformative flankers. Participants’ response times to central stimuli was measured. The attentional bias was observed when stimuli were presented either for 1500?ms (Experiment 1) or 500?ms (Experiment 2). The threat-related attentional bias held regardless of the stimuli competing for attention even when presentation time was further reduced to 200?ms (Experiment 3). The results indicate that automatic and controlled mechanisms may interact to modulate the orientation of attention to threat. The data presented here shed new light on the mechanisms, processes, and time course of this long investigated by still largely unknown processing bias.     

How Cross‐Linguistic Differences in the Grammaticalization of Future Time Reference Influence Intertemporal Choices

According to Chen's (2013) Linguistic Savings Hypothesis (LSH), our native language affects our economic behavior. We present three studies investigating how cross‐linguistic differences in the grammaticalization of future‐time reference (FTR) affect intertemporal choices. In a series of decision scenarios about finance and health issues, we let speakers of altogether five languages that represent FTR with increasing strength, that is, Chinese, German, Danish, Spanish, and English, choose between hypothetical sooner‐smaller and later‐larger reward options. While the LSH predicts a present‐bias that increases with FTR‐strength, our decision makers preferred later‐larger options and this future‐bias increased with FTR‐strength. In multiple regressions, the FTR‐strength effect persisted when controlled for socioeconomic and cultural differences. We discuss why our findings deviate from the LSH and ask in how far the FTR‐strength effect represents a habitual constitution of linguistic relativity or an instance of online decision framing.     

Examining the visual processing patterns of lonely adults

Prior research has shown that loneliness is associated with hypervigilance to social threats, with eye‐tracking research showing lonely people display a specific attentional bias when viewing social rejection and social exclusion video footage (Bangee, Harris, Bridges, Rotenberg & Qualter, 2014; Qualter, Rotenberg, Barrett et al ., 2013). The current study uses eye‐tracker methodology to examine whether that attentional bias extends to negative emotional faces and negative social non‐rejecting stimuli, or whether it could be explained only as a specific bias to social rejection/exclusion. It is important to establish whether loneliness relates to a specific or general attention bias because it may explain the maintenance of loneliness. Participants (N = 43, F = 35, M age = 20 years and 2 months, SD = 3 months) took part in three tasks, where they viewed different social information: Task 1 – slides displaying four faces each with different emotions (anger, afraid, happy and neutral), Task 2 – slides displaying sixteen faces with varying ratios expressing happiness and anger, and Task 3 – slides displaying four visual scenes (socially rejecting, physically threatening, socially positive, neutral). For all three tasks, eye movements were recorded in real time with an eye‐tracker. Results showed no association between loneliness and viewing patterns of facial expressions, but an association between loneliness and hypervigilant viewing of social rejecting stimuli. The findings indicate that lonely adults do not have a generalised hypervigilance to social threat, but have, instead, a specific attentional bias to rejection information in social contexts. Implications of the findings for interventions are discussed.