“My students chose this paper because a) it would be easy to collect the data through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, b) it’s implications seemed relevant to current American politics, and c) we did have some concerns about its ability to replicate given relatively small sample sizes used to test complex interaction effects, and p-values that were all fairly close to p = .05, suggesting the effects might not be reliable.”The original study was published in Psychological Science. The replication study appears in Social Psychological and Personality Science.Crawford and his colleagues conducted a close replication of the original study using 1,353 White participants. (The replication recruited significantly more participants than the original study.)Confirming some of the original study’s findings, the researchers found that people who endorsed status-legitimizing beliefs were more likely to perceive anti-White bias. In other words, participants who agreed with statements such as “America is a just society where differences in status between ethnic groups reflect actual group differences” tended to also agree with statements such as “Prejudice and discrimination against Whites are on the rise.”But the researchers failed to find evidence for a key finding of the original study: that perceptions of racial progress in the United States increased the perceptions of anti-White bias among people high in status-legitimizing beliefs. “I think there are a few takeaways, depending on what you want to emphasize. One is that replicability is still a concern in (social) psychology — these are studies published not terribly long ago in a premier psychology journal that clearly did not replicate,” Crawford told PsyPost. “Another is that we still don’t necessarily know what explains Whites’ perceptions of anti-White bias. There is clear evidence that more politically conservative beliefs (i.e., high status-legitimizing beliefs) are associated with perceived anti-White bias (think of the type of racial resentment and White victimization someone like Tucker Carlson peddles in).” “There is only limited evidence that racial progress is associated with these bias perceptions though (when we measure people’s beliefs about racial progress, we see the relationship; but, our manipulations did not enhance these bias perceptions). Most importantly, the original paper’s point that certain types of people (high SLBs) react to racial progress by perceiving greater amounts of anti-White bias is just not happening, at least right now,” Crawford said.The findings cast doubt on the original study, but it does not necessarily mean the research was completely false.“The biggest caveat of course is that it’s unclear why the studies didn’t replicate. There are a number of reasons to believe that the original studies aren’t replicable because they were false positives,” Crawford explained.“However, another plausible explanation is that the finding did exist when the original studies were conducted under Obama’s presidency, but given seismic changes in American politics with the election of Donald Trump, it’s possible that the relationships among conservative beliefs, racial progress, and perceptions of anti-White bias have been altered.”For example, Crawford and his colleagues found that participants’ perception of racial progress in the United States was higher in the original study than in the replication.“Future research should try to determine the answer to this question,” Crawford said.The study also highlights the difficulty of deciphering some replication studies.“This replication attempt represents a microcosm of the challenges of interpreting replication studies in some areas of social psychology,” Crawford remarked. “Given that many social psychology effects may be context-dependent, when contexts change from an original study to a replication study, and the replication fails, is it because of concerns with the original study itself (i.e., false positives?) or because of the altered social context?”The study, “Do Status-Legitimizing Beliefs Moderate Effects of Racial Progress on Perceptions of Anti-White Bias? A Replication of Wilkins and Kaiser (2014)“, was authored by Jarret T. Crawford, Shreya Vodapalli, Ryan E. Stingel, and John Ruscio. Some key findings from a 2014 psychology study about perceptions of discrimination against White people have failed to replicate.The study, which was conducted while Barack Obama was president, found that White people who believed the current U.S. social hierarchy was legitimate were more likely to see themselves as victims of discrimination after reading an article about racial progress.“I teach an advanced undergraduate research seminar in which the students identify several potential articles for replication, and choose together which article to replicate,” said Jarret T. Crawford of the College of New Jersey, the lead author of the replication study. Share Share on Facebook LinkedIn Share on Twitter Email Pinterest
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
Norwegian oil and gas major Statoil has failed to find oil in its latest North Sea exploration well. The wildcat well 16/7-11, is located in the production licence 72 B in the North Sea, offshore Norway.The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) granted Statoil a drilling permit for well on August 12.The well was drilled approximately 10 kilometres east of the Sleipner A platform in the central part of the North Sea and 220 kilometres west of Stavanger, where the water depth is 81 metres.The purpose of the well, the NPD says, was to prove petroleum in Upper Trias reservoir rocks (the Skagerrak formation). The well was drilled 97 metres into the Skagerrak formation, about 50 metres of which was in thin sandstone layers with moderate to good reservoir quality.Data acquisition has been carried out. This is the second exploration well in production licence 72 B, where Statoil is the operator with a 50% ownership interest. The other licensee is ExxonMobil Exploration & Production Norway AS with 50%.Well 16/7-11 was drilled to a vertical depth of 2,625 metres below sea level and was terminated in the Skagerrak formation. It will now be permanently plugged and abandoned.The well was drilled by the drilling rig Songa Trym, which will now drill wildcat well 25/11-28 in the central part of the North Sea in production licence 169, where Statoil is the operator with an ownership interest of 57%. The other licensees are Petoro AS with 30% and ExxonMobil & Production Norway AS with 13%.[mappress mapid=”2489″]
Sarens has unloaded and installed six lock gates on the Leie River in Belgium, on behalf of client Victor Buyck Steel Construction. The gates, which were installed on the river near Sint-Baafs-Vijve were designed to fit a brand new, larger lock as part of the De Vlaamse Waterweg Seine-Schelde Project.“In the southwest of Flanders, Belgium, along the Leie River, all the locks are being renewed and enlarged,” explains Project Manager Luc De Meester. “This years-long project will allow larger inland vessels weighing up to 3.000 tones to sail, via the Leie, from the Seine in France to the Schelde in Antwerp.”To unload and install the enormous 43-tonne lock doors, Sarens used the LTM 1130-5.1 and LTM 1450-8.1. Additionally, an AC50 and LTM 1100-5.2 worked for several days alongside the lock, completing preparations and finishing work. In selecting the equipment, Sarens paid special attention to ground pressure and ensured that cranes would be versatile and flexible in three different positions along the lock. Because all equipment came from the Sarens headquarters in Wolvertem, Sarens could quickly transport and set up the telescopic cranes at the job site.The lock doors measured 9,75m x 10m with a 26,6m radius, and Sarens crane drivers successfully lifted them without the use of a tailing crane. The work was completed one day earlier than expected, and Sarens is pleased to have been a part of this crucial initiative. For more information on the project, visit the Seine-Schelde Project website or view the video!
The new offence being created to ban referral fees will cover those receiving the fees as well as the lawyers who pay them, justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said last week. The minister told a LexisNexis costs conference that he wants the offence to go ‘further than just solicitors’. Djanogly said he had decided to use a regulatory rather than criminal offence to implement the referral fee ban because of the lower burden of proof. Jurors in a criminal case might have difficulty with the complex scenarios that could arise, such as where an insurer gives a solicitor work but insists that the lawyer buys its insurance in return. Djanogly noted that the previous ban on referral fees, lifted in 2004, involved too much ‘leakage’ in the system, which he wants to avoid. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is on track to become law by the end of the year, Djanogly said. He added that the bill’s provisions, which include Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms to civil litigation, will come into force next October. The minister said he had not been swayed by ‘special interest groups’ seeking exemptions from the provisions. ‘Sir Rupert Jackson is very firm in his belief that non-recoverability [of certain costs] must be brought in as a package across the board. There are many different interest groups who feel that they are a special case: clinical negligence, insolvency, professional negligence. They all say that they should have carve-outs. I can see now why he wants it as a package, and we support his view.’ On the government’s separate proposal to raise the small claims track limit, Djanogly said this would benefit many consumers. However, he said reports that a rise in the limit to £10,000 was already a ‘done deal’ were not correct.
Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe now for unlimited access To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN
Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe now for unlimited access Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN
The cargo, which was shipped for a client in the naval construction industry, was transported from Sheffield on three flat rack containers.From Sheffield, the anchors were transported to the UK port of Felixstowe, lashed onto the 40 ft flat racks and loaded onto a container vessel using a gantry crane fitted with specialist heavy lift gear.The cargo was then shipped to the port of Los Angeles, where the flat rack containers were loaded onto another vessel for the second leg of the journey to Honolulu.On arrival in the Hawaiian port of Honolulu, the cargo could not be immediately unloaded due to two major hurricanes – Hurricane Iselle and Hurrican Julio – which were active in the area.After three days, the port was given permission to begin discharge, and the three flat rack containers were lifted off the vessel and inspected for damage, before being lashed onto trucks for onward transport to the jobsite by road. www.tuscorlloyds.com
Has it really come to this? Will elections of the future really be decided on how much violence we are prepared to countenance against criminals? Chris Grayling’s keynote speech at the Conservative Party Conference will today propose a change to the law on self-defence against burglars, to allow ‘disproportionate’ force to be used. The ‘hang em and flog em’ brigade will lap it up here in Birmingham, taking it as a sign that the Tories are finally taking charge of law and order and that brief, liberal nightmare of Ken Clarke’s time at the Ministry of Justice is now a distant memory. But this is political opportunism of the worst kind – panicked, dangerous and counter-productive politics, with policies thought up on a whim for the sake of a few middle England votes. For a start, it doesn’t make sense. If a disproportionate action is deemed acceptable, then surely it is no longer disproportionate? Otherwise what’s the use of the term in the first place? For David Cameron to claim, as he told the BBC this morning, that there has been ‘uncertainty’ about what people are allowed to do when a burglar comes into their home is staggering. Because if there is a problem with the current wording of the laws, that’s his fault. The current law was set by his own government just a few months ago when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act came into force. Check it out for yourself under section 148, rather incongruously crowbarred into the legislation. It clearly states that ‘”reasonable force” is acceptable in the common law defence of defence of property’. This is the government’s own work, yet within months they deem their own laws to be unacceptable. What changed in the meantime? Did they suddenly realise there was political capital in bashing burglars? A couple of high-profile cases and they sense a chance to appease the masses. It’s policy decided by the polls and Grayling should be ashamed. Does this proposal really clarify how much force can be used against intruders? Is ‘grossly disproportionate’ (the new tipping point for potential prosecution) easier to understand than simply ‘disproportionate’? Is it not possible this will confuse the public – and the courts even further about what is acceptable? The lord chief justice was pretty clear that the law provides adequate protection to the householder when he spoke during his annual press conference last month. Reasonable force already took account, he said, of the panic and anxiety of the householder and the courts would respond accordingly. There really is no justification for any change in the law. And so to the consequences. Burglars will inevitably get hurt. I don’t expect many hearts to bleed at that prospect (though do consider that roughly 30% of prisoners grew up in care homes, compared with 1% of the rest of the population – there must be some room for compassion). But what kind of Britain do we want to create? Do we really want one where householders are encouraged to use violence? In Florida in February this year, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was fatally shot by a resident who had earlier told police Martin was acting suspiciously. The case raised questions about Florida’s ‘stand-your-ground’ law which states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defence when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. Critics say the law gives the green light to people to shoot others first and then claim self-defence afterwards. A taskforce examining the law said it was ‘confusing’ for homeowners. There is still some distance before Grayling arrives at something similar in England and Wales, but the law is changing at such a rate that you wouldn’t rule it out. And let’s not pretend this will reduce the frequency of burglaries – indeed this only means the chilling prospect of intruders arming themselves in their own self-defence before entering someone’s home. Of course, it is terrifying being burgled and the law has a duty to punish the offender. But placing that duty on householders is a dangerous and frightening prospect. There is a very good chance that Grayling’s law will turn an ordinary person into a killer. Even if the law deems that they are immune from prosecution, is that really the kind of society we want to live in? Follow John on Twitter Join our LinkedIn Legal Aid sub-group