Values of British political extremists and potential extremists: A discriminant analysis

Studied the value systems of political extremists and potential extremists, comparing them with the value systems of centrist activists and supporters. Samples of political activists from the Labour, Conservative, Communist and National Front parties were obtained, as well as samples of non-active supporters. The non-active supporters were defined as Potential Extremists, if they supported a centrist party as first choice, but either Communist or National Front as second choice. All subjects completed the Rokeach Value Survey. Discriminant analysis showed that the four groups of activists could be clearly distinguished on the bask of their values. However the values of the Potential Extremists did not especially resemble the values of actual National Front or Communist activists. There were value differences between the Potential Extremists and the centrist supporters; nevertheless these two groups tended to be distinguished by very different values from those which distinguished between the activists. The appeal of value symbols for different types of political involvement was discussed.     

The construction of authority and authenticity in Islamic discourse(s): contrasting and historicizing contemporary narratives from English Sunni narratives

Throughout Islamic history scholars have put forward cases about the ‘right’ way to understand the faith. Focal to these processes is positioning a scholarly narrative as authoritative and authentic. This article contrasts two scholarly narratives of contemporary Sunni Islam as a means to explore how authority and authenticity are constructed. In addition to a critical discourse analysis, the respective positions are contextualized within their respectively claimed classical scholarship. The article identifies the means through which authority and authenticity are justified and it highlights the divisive nature of the discourses, often driven by carefully selected analogies, exaggerations, and the citing of extreme positions as exemplary of the errors of others. The findings have implications for understanding the intolerant, and sometime violent, interactions between Sunni Muslims.     

Animal Rights and Animal Experiments: An Interest-Based Approach

This paper examines whether non-human animals have a moral right not to be experimented upon. It adopts a Razian conception of rights, whereby an individual possesses a right if an interest of that individual is sufficient to impose a duty on another. To ascertain whether animals have a right not to be experimented on, three interests are examined which might found such a right: the interest in not suffering, the interest in staying alive, and the interest in being free. It is argued that while the first two of these interests are sufficient to ground animal rights against being killed and made to suffer by experiments, the interest in freedom does not ground a general animal right not to be used in experimentation. Winner of the second annual Res Publica Postgraduate Essay Prize, 2006.     

Evaluating ‘Bioethical Approaches’ to Human Rights

In recent years there has been growing scholarly interest in the relationship between bioethics and human rights. The majority of this work has proposed that the normative and institutional frameworks of human rights can usefully be employed to address those bioethical controversies that have a global reach: in particular, to the genetic modification of human beings, and to the issue of access to healthcare. In response, a number of critics have urged for a degree of caution about applying human rights to such controversies. In particular, they have claimed that human rights have unresolved distributive and foundational problems. Interestingly, however, some of these critics have gone on to suggest that it might be possible to draw on certain bioethical insights to remedy these problems with human rights. This paper evaluates these recent attempts to apply insights from bioethics to the theory and practice of human rights. It argues that while these insights do not constitute an entirely new and original contribution to human rights thinking, they do force human rights scholars and campaigners to reflect on some key issues. First of all, they force us to question the prevalent idea that human rights are always ‘inviolable trumps’. Secondly, they demand that we pay close attention to the ‘fairness’ of the institutions we charge with determining our concrete rights. And finally, and perhaps most radically, these insights challenge the notion that human rights are held exclusively by members of the human species.     

Switching from approach to withdrawal is easier than vice versa

The preparedness theory of classical conditioning proposed by Seligman (1970, 1971) has been applied extensively over the past 40 years to explain the nature and “source” of human fear and phobias. In this review we examine the formative studies that tested the four defining characteristics of prepared learning with animal fear-relevant stimuli (typically snakes and spiders) and consider claims that fear of social stimuli, such as angry faces, or faces of racial out-group members, may also be acquired utilising the same preferential learning mechanism. Exposition of critical differences between fear learning to animal and social stimuli suggests that a single account cannot adequately explain fear learning with animal and social stimuli. We demonstrate that fear conditioned to social stimuli is less robust than fear conditioned to animal stimuli as it is susceptible to cognitive influence and propose that it may instead reflect on negative stereotypes and social norms. Thus, a theoretical model that can accommodate the influence of both biological and cultural factors is likely to have broader utility in the explanation of fear and avoidance responses than accounts based on a single mechanism.     

Acceptance versus distraction: brief instructions, metaphors and exercises in increasing tolerance for self-delivered electric shocks

The current study compared the effects of an acceptance versus distraction rationale on coping with experimentally induced pain. Eighty participants were randomly assigned to one of five conditions: Full-Acceptance, Full-Distraction, Instruction-only-Acceptance, Instruction-only-Distraction and No-Instructions. Participants completed a simple matching task and were intermittently given the choice either to receive an electric shock and continue, or to avoid the shock and terminate the task. Only the Full-Acceptance strategy (that included experiential exercises and a metaphor) had a significant effect on task tolerance as measured by an increase in the number of shocks delivered post-intervention relative to baseline. In addition, the participants in both of the acceptance conditions showed lower levels of believability in that they were more likely to continue with the task even when reporting more pain. The results support the prediction that acceptance-based interventions work by undermining the behavioural-control functions of pain-related thoughts and feelings, and call for a systematic analysis of how metaphors and exercises work in analogue research.