Differences of Liberal and Conservative Views on Social and Economic Issues

Differences of Liberal and Conservative Views on Social and Economic Issues Political intolerance: Liberals and conservatives on social and economic issues. Abstract: In recent studies liberals and conservatives have been shown to express equal amounts of intolerance towards groups with dissimilar ideologies (Brandt et al., 2014; Crawford et al., 2017). This goes against decades of studies that show that conservatives express higher levels of intolerance compared to liberals (Sibley and Duckitt, 2008). This study explores reasons why recent studies have adopted a better methodology and issues with the vast sum of previous studies. We test participant’s intolerance towards groups that have political ideologies both similar and dissimilar to their own. The results show mixed evidence both supporting and not supporting the intolerance equality claim. We look at reasons why this could be the case and present an improvement for future studies. Introduction: Conservative political ideologies has for decades been linked to higher levels of intolerance and prejudice compared to opposing liberal political ideologies (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). This has created the idea that liberals are also therefore more tolerant and express less prejudice. This has resulted in what looks like a ‘prejudice gap’ between the two ideologies (Farwell & Weiner, 2000). Recently these finding have been brought into question. New studies support that both conservative and liberal ideologies are equal in intolerance and prejudice, thus disproving the prejudice gap, towards views that don’t match their own.   This study explores the relationship between an individual’s political ideology and their intolerance towards an out-group. Intolerance and prejudice are closely related. Intolerance is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from ones own. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. One issue with previous studies is that they focused around minority groups such as African Americans, homosexuals and immigrants (Sears & Henry, 2003; (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010; Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). These minority groups tend to have a bias towards liberal political ideologies. This is crucial in recognising as it shows that these types of studies focus on tolerance demonstrated by liberals and conservatives towards mostly liberal groups. The current research that has demonstrated that liberals and conservatives show equal amounts of intolerance have done so by exploring the tolerance of conservatives and liberals towards both liberal and conservative groups. It was found that liberals and conservatives express negative prejudices towards groups whose values are different from their own (Morgan, Mullen, & Skitka, 2010). In addition people who had conservative or liberal views even tended to prefer to distance themselves from others who did not share similar views (Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005). One study that explored this concept developed the ideological conflict hypothesis (ICH) (Brandt et al., 2014). The ICH proposes that people of different political views are willing to express intolerance and prejudice towards political ideologies that are not similar to their own.   The ICH proposes that conservatives and liberals engage in tactics such as motivated information processing and defence against worldview-violating groups to defend their ideologies. Motivated information processing is when an individual is selective about information they process. Individuals will take in information that supports their worldview while filtering out and ignoring information that conflict with their worldviews, (Kunda, 1990). Research has shown that both liberals and conservatives engage in motivated information processing when presented with an opposing political ideology (Bartels, 2002; Crawford, Jussim, Cain, & Cohen, 2013). Defence against worldview-violating groups is the need to maintain a constant worldview. This wanting of a constant worldview leads to increased intolerance towards groups whose ideologies are dissimilar to the individuals (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006). Studies have shown that both conservatives and liberals share the same level of intensity in regards to their ideologies (Skitka & Bauman, 2008). Building on from ICH one study proposed a theory of multi-dimensional ideological conflict (Crawford et al., 2017). Previous research in this area tends to treat political ideologies as a single dimension; a subject is either liberal or conservative (Jost et al., 2003) meaning the concept of ideological conflict only had one dimension to it. However this not the case, as there is growing evidence to support that there is more then one dimension to an individuals political ideologies (Crawford et al., 2017); that is a person may have a conservative view in one area and a liberal view in another, each view is a dimension. Collectively these dimensions create the persons worldview and ideology, however they are not longer belonging to just one group, conservative or liberal. This study looked at social and economic ideologies. Social ideology tends to refer to issues regarding personal freedoms (abortion, same-sex marriage etc) with conservatives tending to favour greater restriction and liberals favouring fewer restrictions in these areas. Economic ideology tends to refer to matters evolving the economy, with conservatives favouring less government regulations and liberals favouring greater government regulation. This study found two interesting patterns; the first is that it found support for ICH. That is both conservatives and liberals showed equal levels of intolerance towards views that were dissimilar to their own. The second finding was that liberals and conservatives, while still showing equal levels of intolerance, reported to have higher levels of conflict towards social ideologies compared to economic ideologies. Evidence supporting this notion suggest that a persons position on social issues more strongly labels them as a liberal or conservat ive compared to their views of economic issues (Feldman & Johnston, 2013), allowing for a greater intensity of conflict to arise when presented with dissimilar social ideologies compared to economic ideologies. Recent studies are pointing towards two new developments in the understanding of political ideological conflict. The first is that individuals that are conservative or liberal will express equal levels of intolerance towards groups or ideas dissimilar to their own (Brandt et al., 2014). The second is that individuals can have both conservative and liberal views at the same time, but belonging to different dimensions (Crawford et al., 2017), such as social or economic. In addition to this the level of intolerance/conflict expressed is higher for social issues compared to economic.   Ã‚   This leads to this studies hypothesis, it is expected that the results will support ICH, that being that both liberal and conservative participants will show equal levels of intolerance towards groups with dissimilar political ideologies. Additionally it is expected to see higher levels of intolerance/conflict in the social dimension then the economic dimension. Discussion: In this study we explored the intolerance levels of participants who held conservative/liberal views towards groups of both similar and dissimilar views on social and economic issues. The results both supported and did not support our hypotheses. In the social domain test we found evidence in favour of our hypothesis, however in the economic domain we found evidence that contradicted our initial hypotheses. In the social domain, our findings supported our first hypothesis; participants were found to show equal levels of intolerance towards social ideologies that were dissimilar to them. This supports the ideological conflict hypothesis (Brandt et al., 2014). As the ICH states, the possible reasons for the results found in this study is due to motivated information processing (Kunda, 1990) and defence against worldview-violating groups (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006; Skitka & Bauman, 2008).   This states that when liberals or conservative form ideas on a group with political ideologies not similar to their own, they are likely to form ideas that confirm their current ideology, this typically leads to the individual forming negative views towards groups of dissimilar ideologies. This is appropriate as this study presented randomly assigned participants to an out-group with randomly assigned political ideologies, meaning that participants would either be paired to an out-group that had similar or dissimilar political views. Additionally to this finding, it was noted participants showed higher levels of tolerance towards groups who shared similar political ideology. This provides additional evidence in favour of the ICH, as it is expected that when a participant is presented with a similar view to their own, they should express less intolerance. The question this brings up however is why our findings matched ICH and not the vastly large collection of studies that found conservatives to be more intolerant (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). This is explained through the methodology of this experiment. Unlike the majority of studies conducted in the meta-analysis (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008), this studied looked at the intolerance towards groups that held both liberal and conservative views. Previous studies tended to only look at the intolerance towards groups who are easily associated with liberal views (Sears & Henry, 2003; (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010; Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). This experiments methodology closely matched (Brandt et al., 2014) which provides reasoning behind why the results ended up supporting ICH over the vast majority of studies conducted. However due to the large volume of studies against our hypothesis, it’s important to properly address this. A large proportion of social and political psychologists id entify as a liberal with mostly liberal values (Inbar & Lammers, 2012). As ICH would predict, these liberal researchers could be experiencing motivated information processing and defence against worldview-violating groups. One study found that liberal psychologists tended to investigate topics that are of greater importance to liberal ideology (Mullen, Bauman, & Skitka, 2003). So while not discrediting these previous studies, there is evidence supporting a bias within them. This provides further evidence to why our study did not reproduce their results as well as why it is okay that it didn’t. In the economic domain, our findings did not support our first hypothesis, and gave weak evidence towards our second hypothesis. The first hypothesis that this goes against is that both liberals and conservatives will express equal levels of intolerance. Our findings show that conservatives have a much greater intolerance towards groups with dissimilar economic ideologies. The second hypothesis was that social domains would show a higher level of conflict compared to the economic domain. While this remains true for liberal participants and conservatives presented with a conservative out-group. Conservatives presented with an economically liberal out-group demonstrated a much higher level of intolerance, which goes against our second hypothesis. This could be explained if there was a skew in our sample size, this being more liberals then conservatives or vice versa. This leads to one possible error in this study, a sample bias. The target group in this experiment was university studen ts with an average age of around 21-22. One Australian poll found that for the ages of 18-24 and 25-34, political groups with liberal ideologies (e.g. labour party and the greens) dominated over the conservative Australian liberal party (Roy Morgan, 2017). This brings up one issue with the experiment conducted, that is that we did not take into account the number of liberals compared to conservatives and thus over-looked the possibility for a sample skew. If there was a skew in the political identities of participants (favouring liberals) one reason for higher intolerance could be explained according to political conformity (Cohen, 2003). In an age group with a majority of liberal minded individuals, an individual needs to have strong belief in their ideologies to not conform politicly to the majority. So if there was a skew and the people who identified as conservative had strong conservative ideologies, this would example why results showed conservatives more intolerant in economi c domains. Further research is needed where the sample size is correctly identified and taken into account. In conclusion this study found evidence that both supported and did not support our hypotheses. Over the social domain we see evidence of ICH however this is not seen in the economic domain. This could be due to a sample bias that was not taken into account by researchers. Future studies, which control and take into account any sample biases, are needed. References Bartels L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political  Ã‚   perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, pp.117–150. Brandt, M., Reyna, C., Chambers, J., Crawford, J. and Wetherell, G. (2014). The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), pp.27-34. Chambers, J. and Melnyk, D. (2006). Why Do I Hate Thee? Conflict Misperceptions and Intergroup Mistrust.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), pp.1295-1311. Cohen, G. (2003). Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), pp.808-822. Crawford, J., Brandt, M., Inbar, Y., Chambers, J. and Motyl, M. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), pp.383-412. Crawford, J., Jussim, L., Cain, T. and Cohen, F. (2013). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), pp.163-174. Farwell, L. and Weiner, B. (2000). Bleeding Hearts and the Heartless: Popular Perceptions of Liberal and Conservative Ideologies.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), pp.845-852. Feldman, S. and Johnston, C. (2013). Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity.  Political Psychology, 35(3), pp.337-358. Inbar, Y. and Lammers, J. (2012). Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology.  SSRN Electronic Journal. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. and Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.  Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), pp.339-375. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.  Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), pp.480-498. Meertens, R. and Pettigrew, T. (1997). Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice?.  Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(1, Special Issue on Race), p.54. Morgan, G., Mullen, E. and Skitka, L. (2010). When Values and Attributions Collide: Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Values Motivate Attributions for Alleged Misdeeds.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), pp.1241-1254. Mullen, E., Bauman, C. and Skitka, L. (2003). Avoiding the Pitfalls of Politicized Psychology.  Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), pp.171-176. Roy Morgan. (2017).  L-NP (51%) takes the lead over ALP (49%) with only 3 weeks to go. [online] Available at: http://roymorgan.com.au/findings/51115-morgan-poll-august-19-2013-201308181432 [Accessed 1 Oct. 2017]. Sears, D. and Henry, P. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), pp.259-275. Sibley, C. and Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review.  Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), pp.248-279. Skitka, L. and Bauman, C. (2008). Moral Conviction and Political Engagement.  Political Psychology, 29(1), pp.29-54. Skitka, L., Bauman, C. and Sargis, E. (2005). Moral Conviction: Another Contributor to Attitude Strength or Something More?.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), pp.895-917. Terrizzi, J., Shook, N. and Ventis, W. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals.  Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), pp.587-592.

Ethical Issues with the Software Piracy Issue

Computer ethics deals with moral responsibility of what is wrong and right. Based on ? Importance of Computer Ethics and Software Piracy? article, software piracy is copying, distributing, and using software or games without paying. Software Piracy is a form of ethical issue that is hard to solve in society, especially among students of Faculty of Computer Science University of Indonesia. Based on writer observation in campus, students are still using pirated software, including using, duplicating, and distributing it to their friends.This attitude of course violates developer’s intellectual property. The article also mentions about intellectual property and penalties for those who violate computer ethics laws. Intellectual property is including images, patents, procedures, videos, audios, and drawings. For those who violate someone’s intellectual property will be given penalties—paying hefty fines to extensive prison time. But even so, it seems the penalties are still blurring for students. Nowadays, information technology has widely grow and used by human.Computer technology, both hardware and software has been widely approved as an intellectual property. The fast growth of technology innovation, especially software, is open for public and can be easily accessed by public via internet. It is the same for software piracy. Serial key, hack-version, and more other ways are easily accessible and widely available. Based on ? Ethical Issues in Software Piracy? article, someone should have a moral responsibility in using software. So, from internal-self of user should be aware of someone’s intellectual property.W. D. Ross stated ? The Right and the Good? as our guideline to prove our moral responsibility toward software and/or its developer. Software piracy would cause loss of revenue for the developer. Thus, it will decrease developer’s motivation in designing new software. Impacts of software piracy explained above are mostly occ urred because of human and economic factor. Based on the article, software piracy occurred mostly in developing-countries; because of their low economics (from GDP per capita), they find it harder to purchase software.Indonesia is one of developing-countries, so it can be concluded roughly that Indonesian people hard to pay for software. In smaller scale, Indonesian social levels have a representative number of users in technology. Social level is about divided in three level; low, medium, and high class. In Faculty of Computers and Society, students also varied in social level or economic level. Some students have Iphone, Windows Phone, or tablets, but some don’t. In general, there is no difference among those levels. Every student is using technology. But in majority, students didn’t put much attention toward software piracy issues.Those who have laptops may prefer using unlicensed operating system than using open source operating system. It is a form of software pir acy—using without paying. In addition, current status of our community is still far from the word ? ethical?. We have not appreciating others’ property as well as we did to ourselves yet. The rule in ? Kode Etik Mahasiswa Fasilkom? , point two stated ? †¦including appreciates intellectual property?. Students of Faculty of Computer Science already know about this rule. In fact, it’s not the same as in the implementation, ignorance being a common habit.Ignorance regarding unlicensed software caused software piracy. Majority tend to have neither attention nor self-control in using unlicensed software. Some may didn’t know that it is unethical. But some maybe already know that what he/she doing is wrong, but even so he/she is still doing it just because everybody—community—is doing it. Our community is affecting us. A student may be an example for his/her friends or his/her community. He/she may use unlicensed software that is followed by o thers. This ignorance habit can damage our own personal ethical which embedded in our heart.Furthermore, we start believing that our wrong-doing is right. In analyzing software piracy, writer think students should have an awareness and moral responsibility. A developer of software may not know that his/her intellectual property was just being used irresponsibly. Student of Faculty of Computer Science should have known how hard it is to make software. They should have aware how long time needed, how many resources sacrificed by the developer to develop software. In student’s point of view, they need it but they don’t want to give more when people are not giving anything.For example, an antivirus should be bought for some prices, but some students found that there is a forever-renew-trial of the antivirus, so that they don’t have to pay. Along with economic principle, ? with less effort, can gain more? , we don’t want to sacrifice more than others. It becam e a serious problem. As a conclusion, how to overcome this issue? It is a professional standard, based on the article; Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) stated that any person who wants to join the ACM should accept ? Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct? which covers the ethical issues surrounding oftware piracy. Writer think we can do as ACM do. Article entitled ? The Rules? also stated that computer artifact—both software and hardware—has rules for both its developer and user, so that they will have morally ethical in developing or using software. It has seven rules which allow and avoid both developer and user to do something about the computer artifact. These rules should be well-applied as a solution for software piracy issue. In the top of those solutions, human factor is the main factor that we should pay more attention. References: 1. K. W.Miller, Moral Responsibility for Computing Artifacts: ? The Rules?. Illinois: IEEE, 2011. 2. Unknown. (2011). K ode Etik Mahasiswa Fakultas Ilmu Komputer Universitas Indonesia [Online]. Available: http://scele. cs. ui. ac. id/file. php/1434/Kode_Etik_Mhsw_Fasilkom. pdf 3. Thurlow, Max. Ethical Issue in Software Piracy [Online]. Available: http://www. ehow. com/list_6669954_ethical-issues-software-piracy. html 4. Boone, Kevin, Importance of Computer Ethics and Software Piracy [Online]. Available: http://www. ehow. com/facts_5766300_importance-computer-ethics-software-piracy. html

Practical Techniques for Good Life Essay Samples You Can Begin to Use Immediately

Practical Techniques for Good Life Essay Samples You Can Begin to Use Immediately When written, there'll be as many life stories since there are people. As part of the most crucial method to finish a very good life, it must be being a good person. Still others say that being truly happy permits you to live a great life. The superior life is a condition in which somebody will be absolutely the most happy. The very first portion of my good life is made up of going to college. A person which you can trust, and will make certain you have a great time whenever your with them. The previous sentence provides the response to the essay question. Though a person might gain pleasure from these types of examples, these paths alone won't accomplish the superior life. Type of Good Life Essay Samples In the majority of instances, it can be said that fantastic health can be equated to a person's self-actualization. Money doesn't turn you into a whole individual, in actuality, if hinders you from the being your true self because of how you've got the ability to acquire just about anything that could be bought. While it might be a nice benefit to having a good life, it sure doesn't show how successful you are in life. Along with that, many centuries later, Schleiermacher was accountable for showing that faith doesn't necessarily exclude a careful comprehension of earth. According to Buddhism , it's up to us to stick to the hints through our own comprehension and experience of what is excellent for us and others. The reality is that we are indeed in a place to revert to our prior status only if we get the support needed. The intent of writing this kind of essay is to provide yourself be a platform to talk about your most meaningful life experiences with different men and women. You may use the samples as a foundation for working out how to write in the proper style. This will supply you with more confidence in relating to the sample file so you may write your paper without difficulty. Keep in mind, in addition, there are discounts available when purchasing all 3 e-books and free shipping when purchasing all three text books. The secret to perfect gift giving is to regard the graduate. The Good Life Essay Samples Chronicles Humanitarian essay samples will provide you with some idea on the capacity of the expert writer or company to create a premium quality humanit arian paper. These forms of essays are guaranteed to doze off your readers. Just make sure your essay has a fantastic flow and that it's simple for different readers to comprehend. These seven sample essays respond to a wide range of thought-provoking questions. It's simple to point out an essay which has been written solely for the interest of it. Stephen's essay is rather effective. Even with the very first impression, a narrative essay isn't the simplest of all assignments. A narrative essay is believed to be among the most popular forms of tasks that students get all too often. The very first step to any essay writing is to select a subject of interest. You may make an academic reflective essay or you may make it like a general and informal bit of writing. If you would like to read about other sorts of assignments, read Overnight Essay blog. You don't need to possess the ideal writing skills so as to be creative and compose an effective essay. Do not become stuck with material possessions and what you've achieved in life. Both are examples of superior life, but so long as you're contented with yourself, you are having a great life. Aside from the format, you must consider the life experience you need to write about and remember everything about it. The experiences we've got in life can be negative or positive, but that's not what really matters. What You Don't Know About Good Life Essay Samples Second, make sure you've got the exact goal in writing compared to the sample you've chosen. Therefore, if you begin with a terrible topic, not only will you wind up with a poor essay, but you risk ruining the fantastic impression that the remainder of your application makes. Regardless of what's the aim of your essay, there's a preset number of points which you will be expected to deal with. The general format of your essay, for example, font size and margins, will solely count on the instructions provided to you. The Argument About Good Life Essay Samples It's about the urge to become something and determination. Since happiness is virtually a universal emotion their conclusions on the reason behind happiness is comparable. Some seek the excellent life during the misguided aim of materialism or lofty social status. Additionally, it implies that so as to live the fantastic life, there has to be no action that is unnecessary, but for the interest of virtue.

Rhetorical Analysis Of Wrigley Gum - 922 Words

It’s the little things that matter. At least that’s what Wrigley gum company wants us to believe. A commercial first launched on Valentine’s day, the sappy, yet charming, Extra Gum commercial â€Å"The Story of Sarah and Juan† is a commercial like no other. The commercial begins as a flashback to a high school relationship. From the first day the couple meets, the commercial met the needs of the audience rhetorically by using the three major components of rhetoric--ethos, pathos, and logos. â€Å"The Story of Sarah and Juan† effectively gets an emotional reaction out of its audience by using these rhetorical elements to link Extra Gum to a memorable connection. Not just any connection, true love that can withstand anything. A company that magically†¦show more content†¦They show Sarah giving Juan a hug and then another piece of gum, as if it’s the main source to them becoming intimate. The symbolism continues as they happily grow ol der and move in together. It simply goes to show that the reason behind the gum wrappers is exposed later on in the story when Juan finally proposes to Sarah. Pathos plays a large role in this commercial, as it manipulates the audience’s emotions. Both a juxtaposition and pathos is shown to the audience when the couple begins to fight about bills. Then, Sarah looks at Juan and gives him some Extra Gum. Since the gum brings back good memories, Juan hugs Sarah and everything is okay again. This is appealing to pathos because the rhetor evokes emotions such as sadness and sympathy; the audience is feeling sympathetic due to this conflict in the story. When everything got better again, the audience remembers that every time the gum was exchanged, it had a positive effect for Sarah and Juan. This element works to achieve the rhetor’s purpose by evoking sadness in the audience, and then making the Extra gum by association the â€Å"savior† in each situation they encounter. Through their long distance relationship, and their married couple fights, the Extra gum had always been a symbol of their connection. This ties back into how the rhetor wants you to think that â€Å"It’s the little things that matter.† Also, it was no coincidence that SarahShow MoreRelatedCase Study Colgate5056 Words   |  21 Pagest see an immediate risk for Colgate as the category is not very big in Colgate s portfolio. And Colgate being market leader in oral care, if the segment interests the company, it will grow faster benefiting all the players involved INDUSTRY ANALYSIS : 1. Competition in the sector: It was mainly dominated by three market leader: Colgate Palmolive, Hindustan Unilever Limited and Dabur. They jointly hold a market share of 85% both by volume and value. Apart from there were a few Indian companiesRead MoreLogical Reasoning189930 Words   |  760 PagesReasons ................................................................................................ 236 Deceiving with Loaded Language ................................................................................................... 238 Using Rhetorical Devices .................................................................................................................. 240 Review of Major Points .............................................................................................