Wind turbines are an effective source of energy for climate change mitigation. The placement of windmills is often challenged by residents in the local area. In a previous study, it was found that...Show moreWind turbines are an effective source of energy for climate change mitigation. The placement of windmills is often challenged by residents in the local area. In a previous study, it was found that given to local residents about the implementation of windmills in the local area could be an important factor in local wind turbine project acceptance, and that this relationship was mediated by perceived procedural fairness and trust in the wind turbine company. The focus of this experimental scenario study (N=679) is to replicate and build on this previous study. In the current study, participants were asked to empathize with the residents of a fictional town, where a wind farm would be located. Depending on the experimental group, voice expectations were manipulated by randomly assigning to three manipulation groups where they were told that it was common, uncommon that they would be given voice by the company and another group where no voice expectations were manipulated. Participants then either received an opportunity to voice their opinion or received no voice opportunity. In this study it was predicted and found that receiving voice compared to no voice would increase wind turbine project acceptance. It was also predicted and found that this relationship was sequentially mediated by perceived procedural fairness via perceived trust. And lastly, it was predicted that voice expectation served as a mediator between voice opportunity and acceptance. Both of these findings replicated previous research. No significant interaction effect of voice opportunity and voice expectations was found.Show less
Despite their scientific promise, gene editing technologies (GETs) have been subjected to many debates regarding the ethics, politics, and social consequences of genetic modification. This is...Show moreDespite their scientific promise, gene editing technologies (GETs) have been subjected to many debates regarding the ethics, politics, and social consequences of genetic modification. This is largely due to its similarities with old eugenics policies, as well as trends seen in healthcare practice and access for other innovative medical technologies (e.g. geographical practice variations, and socio-economic disparities in access to care and medical innovativeness). Currently taking part in these debates are the scientific community, historians, and ethicists. As such, the public does not yet have a seat at the table, though this is necessary to devise succesful policies and regulations pertinent to the (potential) wider adoption of GETs in the healthcare system. Therefore, this study aims to gauge the public perception on GETs, while accounting for Race and Level of Education. More specifically, this study focusses on the predictiveness of said variables for the degree to which one is accepting of GETs, and to what extent they fear that GETs are discriminatory in nature. This is achieved by means of multiple linear regressions. It was found that Race and Level of Education were insignificantly predictive of acceptance of gene editing technologies (R2 = .002, F(2, 137) = .154, p = .857). Further, they were insignificantly predictive of fear of gene editing technologies being discriminatory (R2 = .036, F(2, 130) = 2.441, p = .091).Show less
Fluctuations in self-esteem help us monitor social acceptance and potential social threats, such as rejection. However, how people interpret and react to social acceptance and rejection depends on...Show moreFluctuations in self-esteem help us monitor social acceptance and potential social threats, such as rejection. However, how people interpret and react to social acceptance and rejection depends on individual differences in how sensitive people are to rejection. Highly rejectionsensitive individuals anxiously expect, readily perceive and overreact to rejection. This study examined how individual differences in rejection sensitivity modulate self-esteem fluctuations in response to social feedback. Participants (n = 190; age - range = 17 - 38) performed a task that entailed receiving acceptance and rejection feedback from raters who differed in their propensity to provide acceptance feedback. Participants were asked to indicate whether they expected the raters to like them and repeatedly reported on their momentary self-esteem after receiving feedback. The findings indicate that self-esteem increased in response to acceptance feedback and decreased in response to rejection feedback, and these effects were exacerbated when rejection was unexpected. Further analyses with a subset of participants (n = 165; age - range = 17 - 31) who completed a rejection sensitivity questionnaire revealed a potential mechanism through which rejection sensitivity may give rise to psychopathology. In addition to expecting rejection more often than participants with low rejection sensitivity levels, highly rejection-sensitive participants showed larger decreases in self-esteem in response to rejection and larger increases in self-esteem in response to acceptance feedback. This sensitivity may exacerbate declines in self-esteem in response to rejection instances in their day-to-day interactions, making them more vulnerable to developing persistent low self-esteem and, ultimately, mental health issues.Show less
This thesis tests the RAS model created by John Zaller. By using the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study from 1998 to 2003, the observed change in public opinion of Dutch voters towards non western...Show moreThis thesis tests the RAS model created by John Zaller. By using the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study from 1998 to 2003, the observed change in public opinion of Dutch voters towards non western immigrants is tested. Results include the inability to explain the changes in public opinion according to the RAS model. However, key variables such as political knowledge and political predispositions prove to be significant explanatory variables in this case.Show less
