South–South cooperation and the geographies of Latin America–Caribbean integration and development: a socio-spatial approach

Structured around the case of South–South cooperation in the construction of “complementary economic zones” among the member states of the ALBA-TCP, Petrocaribe, CARICOM and MERCOSUR, this article argues for a socio-spatial approach to the study of the Latin America–Caribbean integration and development. Two interrelated arguments are developed: first, in contrast to methodologically nationalist approaches, which typically view the regionalisms that are to form the complementary economic zones as ideologically separate, incompatible or conflicting projects, a sociospatial approach in conjunction with a South–South cooperation analytical lens explains their commonality and, subsequently, their interrelatedness and convergence. Second, while this South–South cooperation space is not per se non-capitalist, a socio-spatial analysis also facilitates “seeing” the production of a socialist “counter-space” within this South–South cooperation structure

The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony

Two important parenting strategies are to impose one's power and to use reasoning. The effect of these strategies on children's evaluation of testimony has received very little attention. Using the epistemic vigilance framework, we predict that when the reasoning cue is strong enough it should overcome the power cue. We test this prediction in a population for which anthropological data suggest that power is the prominent strategy while reasoning is rarely relied on in the interactions with children. In Experiment 1, 4‐ to 6‐year‐old children from a traditional Maya population are shown to endorse the testimony supported by a strong argument over that supported by a weak argument. In Experiment 2, the same participants are shown to follow the testimony of a dominant over that of a subordinate. The participants are then shown to endorse the testimony of a subordinate who provides a strong argument over that of a dominant who provides either a weak argument (Experiment 3) or no argument (Experiment 4). Thus, when the power and reasoning cues conflict, reasoning completely trumps power.Swiss National Science Foundation/[PZ001P1_142388/1]/SNSF/SuizaUCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Ciencias Sociales::Facultad de Ciencias Sociales::Escuela de Psicologí