No description available.

Beliefs are social in nature. and are widely shared within social groups, such as cultures. Shared beliefs reflect how people construct their social world and how they seek meaning and understanding of social realities. and they are context specific. General beliefs are context free and related to a wide spectrum of social behaviours across diverse contexts, actors, targets and periods. These general beliefs function like axioms in mathematics, thus they are basic premises that people endorse and on which they rely to guide their actions. A better understanding of beliefs can therefore be a useful instrument in managing a diverse workforce, such as the workforce found in South Africa. The objectives of this study were to investigate the replicability of the Social Axioms Survey (SAS) in the South African Police Service (SAPS), to examine the construct equivalence and item bias. and to assess the reliability. A cross-sectional survey design was used. The study population consisted of applicants (N=1535) who applied for jobs in the SAPS. The SAS instrument was administered. Descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, scale and item level analysis and estimation of reliability were used to analyse the results. An exploratory factor analysis utilising target rotation applied on all 60 items of the SAS revealed four interpretable factors (Factor 1 = Social Cynicism; Factor 2 = Reward for Application; Factor 4 = Fate Control; and Factor 5 = Spirituality Religiosity) congruent with the model of Leung et al. (2002). The third factor, namely Social Complexity did not replicate. Values of Tucker's phi higher than 0.90 were found for seven culture groups (Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, Swati, Tsonga, Venda and Pedi). This provided a strong indication of the structural equivalence. Analyses of variance showed that item bias was not a major disturbance. Cronbach's alpha reported lower levels of reliability. Recommendations for future research were made. / Thesis (M.A. (Industrial Psychology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

Beliefs are social in nature. and are widely shared within social groups, such as cultures. Shared beliefs reflect how people construct their social world and how they seek meaning and understanding of social realities. and they are context specific. General beliefs are context free and related to a wide spectrum of social behaviours across diverse contexts, actors, targets and periods. These general beliefs function like axioms in mathematics, thus they are basic premises that people endorse and on which they rely to guide their actions. A better understanding of beliefs can therefore be a useful instrument in managing a diverse workforce, such as the workforce found in South Africa. The objectives of this study were to investigate the replicability of the Social Axioms Survey (SAS) in the South African Police Service (SAPS), to examine the construct equivalence and item bias. and to assess the reliability. A cross-sectional survey design was used. The study population consisted of applicants (N=1535) who applied for jobs in the SAPS. The SAS instrument was administered. Descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, scale and item level analysis and estimation of reliability were used to analyse the results. An exploratory factor analysis utilising target rotation applied on all 60 items of the SAS revealed four interpretable factors (Factor 1 = Social Cynicism; Factor 2 = Reward for Application; Factor 4 = Fate Control; and Factor 5 = Spirituality Religiosity) congruent with the model of Leung et al. (2002). The third factor, namely Social Complexity did not replicate. Values of Tucker's phi higher than 0.90 were found for seven culture groups (Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, Swati, Tsonga, Venda and Pedi). This provided a strong indication of the structural equivalence. Analyses of variance showed that item bias was not a major disturbance. Cronbach's alpha reported lower levels of reliability. Recommendations for future research were made. / Thesis (M.A. (Industrial Psychology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

Why do some individuals endorse public policies aimed at reducing income inequality while others oppose them? Why is there widespread support for such policies in certain countries, but not in others? This dissertation advances scholarship toward a general theory of support for redistribution by analyzing variation in redistributive attitudes within and across two developing democracies, Argentina and Peru. Support for redistribution is higher in the former country. It examines existing theories based on interests and group identity, explanations whose predictions have been almost exclusively evaluated in the context of advanced industrial democracies. It also introduces and assesses a belief-based explanation that focuses on inequality frames, simplified mental models of the issue of inequality comprised of individuals’ beliefs about the causes of economic outcomes, about the extent to which society provides equal opportunities, and about the nature of wealth accumulation. This dissertation argues that these theories are complementary and identifies the contextual factors that condition the extent to which the considerations emphasized by these accounts inform redistributive attitudes. Interests and group identity are salient in contexts where individuals have access to material and informational resources that make them more cognizant of their position along economic and ethnic cleavages. In contrast, inequality frames inform redistributive attitudes regardless of context because of their inside-the-head nature. This study shows that the relative dominance of redistributive beliefs in Argentina and self-reliance beliefs in Peru help explain why support for redistribution is higher in the former country. Finally, this dissertation develops a politico-historical explanation for why and how these frames became relatively dominant. This account argues that individuals’ inequality frames are relatively stable during times of normal politics, but malleable during certain critical political junctures brought about by major events like mass political incorporation or economic crises. During such times, individuals are particularly receptive to elite cues and messages that are transmitted not only via rhetoric but also via public policies. Redistributive beliefs become dominant wherever political actors whose discourse features elements consistent with the redistributive frame are able to implement successful comprehensive social policies. The self-reliance frame becomes dominant in countries where this combination of rhetoric and policies does not take place during a critical juncture. / text

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-14T13:16:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 817356 bytes, checksum: 3d92ee05ca1ae8120a03a662176e093b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-08-28 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / For appearing in a question of public health, the induced abortion has been the subject of the social debate. Nevertheless, the discussion is around the speeches that evaluate this behavior not only as a morally inacceptable fact, but also as an action passive of punishment inside the Brazilian legislation. From this reflection, this work analyzed the social perception of induced abortion and its relationship with a whole series of psychosocial factors that make this perception possible. The perception is understood inside three evaluative dimensions: community (how much the action of induced abortion is common), justice (how much the action of induced abortion is fair) and punishment (how much the action of induced abortion must be punished). They were presented stories of abortion in the conditions allowed by law (normalized) and in the not allowed conditions (non-normalized), and also participants who were requested to evaluate them as fair, ordinary and passive of punishment behavior. The considered psychosocial factors were social beliefs that support the social position facing the induced abortion, essentialist beliefs in the differences among men and women, religiosity and familiarity with the induced abortion. For this, it was realized a study correlated to the application of a questionnaire to 614 university students from both male and female sexes from a public university in Paraíba. The results found indicated, for the studied sample, that the induced abortion is perceived as a common behavior, for both situations, normalized (allowed by law) and non-normalized (illegal abortion). The normalized abortion was considered as fairer and less passive of punishment, while the participants considered the non-normalized abortion as less fair and more passive of punishment. As to the position, there was an adhesion to the arguments against the abortion practice, except the arguments linked to the autonomy and individual freedom of the woman to decide about her own body. The sample admitted a small familiarity with the phenomenon of abortion. In the perception of the abortion community (normalized and non-normalized), the explained variations were the position and the familiarity. But for the perception of the justice (normalized and nonnormalized) and the perception of the normalized punishment, the explained variations were the position and the religiosity. And for the perception of the non-normalized punishment, only the position appeared as an explained variation. It was observed that the essentialism does not appear as an explained variation of any perception. The results point to the fact that the more familiarity with the phenomenon of abortion the more is the attribution of the community, it is, there is the recognition of the raised occurrence of abortions for those who admit some type of proximity with the question. It makes sense then to strengthen the institutional role as promotional of the visibility of the abortion, to go beyond the perspective of the morality, but for the social problematic that it is involved with, while behavior daily practiced to the default of the moral judgments made by it. / Por configurar-se numa questão de saúde pública, o aborto provocado tem sido pauta do debate social. No entanto, a discussão se faz atravessada dos discursos que avaliam esse comportamento como um ato tanto moralmente inaceitável, como também passível de punição dentro da legislação brasileira. Partindo dessa reflexão, o presente trabalho analisou a percepção social do aborto provocado e sua relação com uma série de fatores psicossociais que fundamentariam essa percepção. A percepção é entendida dentro de três dimensões avaliativas: comunidade (o quanto a prática do aborto provocado é comum), justiça (o quanto a prática do aborto provocado é justa) e punição (o quanto a prática do aborto provocado deve ser punida). Foram apresentadas historias de abortamento dentro das condições permitidas em lei (normatizadas) e das condições não permitidas (não-normatizadas) e os participantes solicitados a avaliá-las como comportamento comum, justo e passível de punição. Os fatores psicossociais considerados foram crenças sociais que fundamentam o posicionamento social frente ao aborto provocado, crenças essencialistas nas diferenças entre homens e mulheres, religiosidade e familiaridade com o aborto provocado. Para tanto, realizou-se um estudo correlacional com a aplicação de questionário a 614 estudantes universitários de ambos os sexos de uma universidade pública da Paraíba. Os resultados encontrados indicaram que, para a amostra estudada, o aborto provocado é percebido como um comportamento comum, tanto nas situações normatizadas (permitidas em lei) e não-normatizadas (aborto ilegal). O aborto normatizado foi percebido como mais justo e menos passível de punição, enquanto que os participantes perceberam o aborto não-normatizado como menos justo e mais passível de punição. Quanto ao posicionamento houve uma adesão aos argumentos contrários á prática do aborto, com exceção dos argumentos que vinculam-se a autonomia e liberdade individual da mulher para decidir sobre o próprio corpo. A amostra admitiu uma baixa familiaridade com o fenômeno do abortamento. Na percepção da comunidade do aborto (normatizado e não-normatizado), as variáveis explicativas foram o posicionamento e a familiaridade. Já para a percepção da justiça (normatizado e não-normatizado) e a percepção da punição normatizada, as variáveis explicativas foram o posicionamento e a religiosidade. E para a percepção da punição não-normatizada, apenas o posicionamento apareceu como variável explicativa. Observou-se que o essencialismo não aparece como variável explicativa de nenhuma das percepções. Os resultados encontrados apontam para o fato de que quanto mais familiaridade com o fenômeno do abortamento maior é atribuição de comunidade, ou seja, há o reconhecimento da elevada ocorrência de abortos por aqueles que admitem algum tipo de proximidade com a questão. Faz sentido então reforçar o papel institucional como promotor da visibilidade do abortamento, para além da perspectiva da moralidade, mas sim da problemática social que o envolve, enquanto comportamento cotidianamente praticado à revelia dos julgamentos morais a ele feito.