Upon interviewing a sample of youths, researchers who study exposure to violence are often faced with a substantial number of reports of exposure to violence and no way to confirm the veracity of these claims. The remarkably high levels of violence exposure reported by young preschool children (Richters & Martinez, 1990), paired with the low concordance between parents and children concerning what violence the child had witnessed and experienced (Howard, Cross, Li & Huang, 1999; Shahinfar, Fox & Leavitt, 2000), suggests that child self-reports of exposure to violence may not be entirely veridical. Since self-reports appear to be the only feasible method of measuring lifelong exposure to violence, determining the possible causes of false reports and investigating possible predictors should be a significant aspect of studying youth exposure to violence. With this thesis, I have investigated the veracity of child self-reports by comparing responses to a life-long exposure to violence questionnaire administered first between 1997 and 1999, and a second time two years later. Inconsistent reports, wherein an initial report of exposure to a particular violent instance was not confirmed by re-reporting at the second interview, were prevalent on a variety of violence-assessment items, including witnessing a murder and being the victim of a physical attack. For instance, when initially interviewed, approximately one in seven Chicago children aged 8 to 17 reported witnessing a shooting at least once during their lives. Alarmingly, 50% of these children did not confirm this instance of violence when interviewed again two years later. In an effort to identify self- or parent-reported characteristics and behaviours predictive of inconsistent responses concerning witnessing a shooting, I conducted several series of Binomial and Multinomial Logistic Regression analyses. Explanatory variables were selected to be representative of two main likely reasons for inconsistent self-reports: misremembering due to forgetting over time and the inaccuracy of children's memories, and misinformation due to an impulsive propensity towards lying or exaggeration. My findings suggest that, in comparison to individuals who confirmed their initial reports of having 'witnessed a shooting', individuals who retracted their initial claims were generally younger, from a higher socio-economic status level neighbourhood, admittedly lacked guilt after misbehaving, desired a lot of attention, and reported less impulsivity as measured by delinquency and behavioural impulsivity scales. / Thesis / Master of Science (MSc)

<p>This study focuses on ecofeminist ethical theory. A first aim is to clarify ecofeminist views on five central issues in the field of environmental ethics. These issues are: (1) Views of nature, (2) social constructivism and nature, (3) values of nature, (4) ethical contextualism, and (5) ethical pluralism. A second aim is to compare ecofeminist standpoints with certain standpoints within nonfeminist environmental ethical theory. A third aim is to critically discuss some of the main standpoints in ecofeminism. The analysis focuses on the works of Karen Warren, Sallie McFague, Chris Cuomo, and Carolyn Merchant. Other important sources are the environmental philosophers and ethicists J. Baird Callicott, Paul Taylor, Irene Klaver, Bryan G. Norton, Christopher Stone, Eugene Hargrove, Holmes Rolston III, Per Ariansen, Don E. Marietta, and Bruno Latour.</p><p>The result of this study is that there are no main differences between ecofeminism and nonfeminist environmental ethics regarding the main standpoints on the five issues. Rather, the significant differences are found within these main standpoints. In addition, one important characteristic of ecofeminist ethics is its "double nature," that is, the fact that it is rooted in feminism and environmentalism. The double nature of ecofeminism results in a foundation out of which ecofeminism as an environmental philosophy has a unique potential to handle some of the theoretical tensions that environmental ethics creates.</p><p>From the perspective that environmental problems consist of complex clusters of natureculture- discourse and that environmental ethical theory ought to be action guiding, it is argued that ecofeminist ethical theory has an advantage compared to nonfeminist environmental ethics. This standpoint is explained by the fact that ecofeminism holds a variety of views of nature, kinds of social constructivism and contextualism, and conceptions of values and of the self, and from the presumption that this variety reflects the reality of environmental problems. However, in order for ecofeminist ethical theory to fulfill its promise as an acceptable environmental ethical theory, its theoretical standpoints ought to be explicated and further clarified.</p>

This study focuses on ecofeminist ethical theory. A first aim is to clarify ecofeminist views on five central issues in the field of environmental ethics. These issues are: (1) Views of nature, (2) social constructivism and nature, (3) values of nature, (4) ethical contextualism, and (5) ethical pluralism. A second aim is to compare ecofeminist standpoints with certain standpoints within nonfeminist environmental ethical theory. A third aim is to critically discuss some of the main standpoints in ecofeminism. The analysis focuses on the works of Karen Warren, Sallie McFague, Chris Cuomo, and Carolyn Merchant. Other important sources are the environmental philosophers and ethicists J. Baird Callicott, Paul Taylor, Irene Klaver, Bryan G. Norton, Christopher Stone, Eugene Hargrove, Holmes Rolston III, Per Ariansen, Don E. Marietta, and Bruno Latour. The result of this study is that there are no main differences between ecofeminism and nonfeminist environmental ethics regarding the main standpoints on the five issues. Rather, the significant differences are found within these main standpoints. In addition, one important characteristic of ecofeminist ethics is its "double nature," that is, the fact that it is rooted in feminism and environmentalism. The double nature of ecofeminism results in a foundation out of which ecofeminism as an environmental philosophy has a unique potential to handle some of the theoretical tensions that environmental ethics creates. From the perspective that environmental problems consist of complex clusters of natureculture- discourse and that environmental ethical theory ought to be action guiding, it is argued that ecofeminist ethical theory has an advantage compared to nonfeminist environmental ethics. This standpoint is explained by the fact that ecofeminism holds a variety of views of nature, kinds of social constructivism and contextualism, and conceptions of values and of the self, and from the presumption that this variety reflects the reality of environmental problems. However, in order for ecofeminist ethical theory to fulfill its promise as an acceptable environmental ethical theory, its theoretical standpoints ought to be explicated and further clarified.