Cultural Authority in Comparative Context: A Multilevel Analysis of Trust in Science and Religion

Science and religion are among the most influential forces for organizing social life around the world, yet we know little about how national context shapes perceptions of them. Using data from the 2008 International Social Survey Program, we begin to fill this gap by investigating cross‐national differences in public attitudes about science, religion, and society. We find that exposure to science is associated with more trust in science relative to religion whereas religiosity is associated with less trust in science relative to religion. Moreover, these relationships are amplified in secular societies and in those where science is prioritized. We argue that secular and scientific societies provide a context in which personal characteristics are more influential in the formation of social attitudes. These results highlight the importance of macro‐level factors for shaping trust in science and religion and for understanding the sources of their influence in society more broadly.     

Public discourse and the myth of religious speech

Critics of public religious speech have proposed various strategies for limiting the presence of religion in the public square, while proponents of public religious speech argue that such limitations constitute an infringement of the freedom of speech. For theoretical, practical, and ethical reasons, I argue for dismissing the category of ‘religious speech’, which rests on the erroneous assumption of a clear distinction between ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. ‘Religious speech’ should be regarded no differently from any other kind of speech; it therefore ought not to be subject to either special limitations or protections. Regarding religious speech as nothing other than free speech ensures the right of religious citizens publicly to express their views, while simultaneously preserving the right of other citizens to provide a critique to arguments that are framed in religious terms.     

Perceiving high social mindfulness during interpersonal interaction promotes cooperative behaviours

Social mindfulness refers to individual's respect and protection of others’ options in interpersonal interaction. The object‐choosing task is a traditional paradigm to assess social mindfulness. Individuals with high social mindfulness would choose the nonunique object so that others would have more options; on the contrary, individuals with low social mindfulness would choose the unique object, which limits others’ choices. No prior study has examined whether perceiving people with different levels of social mindfulness affects one's cooperation. Based on this background, two experiments were conducted to address this question. In both experiments, a confederate participant's (Player A's) social mindfulness was manipulated by setting the frequency that Player A chose the unique and the nonunique objects. Then, participants were asked to interact with Player A in the public goods game (Experiment 1) or in the centipede game (Experiment 2). Convergent results showed that compared to those interacting with a socially unmindful person, participants interacting with a person perceived as socially mindful contributed more resources in the public goods game and chose to pass on more rounds in the centipede game. These findings suggest that perception of others’ high social mindfulness enhances one's own cooperative behaviour.     

Countering illegibility: Religion,ethnicity and sexuality in public debates and lived experience in Belgium

In this article, I set out to explore various intersectional social constructions of ethnicity, religion and sexuality. First, I conduct an analysis of recent public controversies in Flanders (Belgium) about women’s and (homo)sexual equality as set against religious authorities and religious-ethnic minorities. It reveals how dominant understandings of ethnicity, sexuality and religion are constructed, reinforced and, if needed, defended. Second, I foreground a critical counter-voice negotiating these what I call ‘ethno-sexular’ boundary constructions. I analyse the lived experiences of Hajar, a volunteer of an antiracist LGBTQI organisation located in Brussels, and argue that because of a dominant ethno-sexular discourse, Hajar’s hybrid identifications and critical voice is made illegible in much of her social environment.     

信任还是设防？互动博弈中社会善念对合作行为的促进效应

社会善念是个体在人际互动中充满善意地关注、尊重并保护他人选择的需要和权利的行为,通过实施社会善念有助于提升他人的合作行为。为检验这一假设,本实验设置了“施—受”双方的互动博弈情境,采用“物品选择游戏”操纵实施者的社会善念水平,分别利用信任博弈和公共物品游戏测查接受者在互动过程中的信任水平和合作行为。结果发现：相比于低社会善念组,被试在高社会善念组中表现出更高的信任水平和合作行为。进一步路径分析也发现,信任在感知社会善念与合作行为间发挥着部分中介作用。由此可见,社会善念行为的实施为互动双方建立信任关系提供了重要线索,降低了人们时时“设防”的监控动机,使合作带来的利益双赢成为可能。     

信任及其对公共财物两难博弈中合作行为影响

社会两难的行为动机研究认为,害怕和贪婪是人们选择不合作的原因。信任的心理学研究为社会两难的合作行为提供了另一种观点,即害怕被利用的背后实际上体现了博弈者对对方的信任的缺失。鉴于传统社会两难范式存在难以区分信任和合作两个因素的问题,本研究设计了“信任一合作”二阶段模拟实验,通过操作重复信托博弈中的信息反馈,研究虚拟多人信托博弈中初始信任和基于经验的信任对随后的公共财物两难博弈中合作行为的影响,结果发现：（1）初始信任对基于经验的信任的建立具有一定的积极影响,但是它对合作行为的作用远不如随后的基于经验的信任;（2）基于经验的信任水平高的被试在随后的公共财物两难博弈中也表现出较高的合作行为。     

构建21世纪美国公共卫生体系的原则

美国卫生与福利部长沙拉拉博士在一次演讲中提出了构建２１世纪美国公共卫生体系的十大原则,这些原则包括公共卫生与信息革命;大力发展预防医学;医学研究;消除卫生保健的悬殊状况;新世纪卫生人卫生人培养;保护大学生卫生中心以及医学伦理学等主要内容。这些原则对我们思考规划２１世纪的医疗卫生体系及医学教育系不无借鉴启迪意义。     

Making the audience a key participant in the science communication process

The public communication of science and technology has become increasingly important over the last several decades. However, understanding the audience that receives this information remains the weak link in the science communication process. This essay provides a brief review of some of the issues involved, discusses results from an audience-based study, and suggests some strategies that both scientists and journalists can use to modify media coverage in ways that can help audiences better understand major public issues that involve science and technology. Carol L. Rogers is editor of the interdisciplinary journal Science Communication.     

Does an Appeal to the Common Good Justify Individual Sacrifices for Genomic Research?

In genomic research the ideal standard of free, informed, prior, and explicit consent is believed to restrict important research studies. For certain types of genomic research other forms of consent are therefore proposed which are ethically justified by an appeal to the common good. This notion is often used in a general sense and this forms a weak basis for the use of weaker forms of consent. Here we examine how the notion of the common good can be related to individual health, health care, and genomic research and we use this analysis to propose more precise criteria to justify forms of consent which diverge from the ideal standard.