The Role of Diversity in Cybersecurity Risk Analysis: An Experimental Plan

Cybersecurity threat and risk analysis (RA) approaches are used to identify and mitigate security risks early-on in the software development life-cycle. Existing approaches automate only parts of the analysis procedure, leaving key decisions in identification, feasibility and risk analysis, and quality assessment to be determined by expert judgement. Therefore, in practice teams of experts manually analyze the system design by holding brainstorming workshops. Such decisions are made in face of uncertainties, leaving room for biased judgement (e.g., preferential treatment of category of experts). Biased decision making during the analysis may result in unequal contribution of expertise, particularly since some diversity dimensions (i.e., gender) are underrepresented in security teams. Beyond the work of risk perception of non-technical threats, no existing work has empirically studied the role of diversity in the risk analysis of technical artefacts. This paper proposes an experimental plan for identifying the key diversity factors in RA

Політичні настрої українського селянства в умовах колективізації сільського господарства (історіографічний огляд)

In social groups, individuals are often confronted with evaluations of their behaviour by other group members and are motivated to adapt their own behaviour accordingly. In two studies we examine emotional responses towards, and perceived coping abilities with, morality vs. competence evaluations individuals receive from other in-group members. In Study 1, we show that evaluations of one's immoral behaviour primarily induce guilt, whereas evaluations of incompetent behaviour raise anger. In Study 2, we elaborate on the psychological process associated with these emotional responses, and demonstrate that evaluations of immorality, compared to incompetence, diminish group members' perceived coping abilities, which in turn intensifies feelings of guilt. However, when anticipating an opportunity to restore one's self-image as a moral group member, perceived coping abilities are increased and the experience of guilt is alleviated. Together these studies demonstrate how group members can overcome their moral misery when restoring their self-image

The ideological basis of antiscientific attitudes: Effects of authoritarianism, conservatism, religiosity, social dominance, and system justification

Serious concerns about public distrust of scientific experts and the spread of misinformation are growing in the US and elsewhere. To gauge ideological and psychological variability in attitudes toward science, we conducted an extensive analysis of public opinion data based on a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults ( N = 1,500) and a large replication sample ( N = 2,119). We estimated the unique effects of partisanship, symbolic and operational forms of political ideology, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and general system justification (GSJ), after adjusting for demographic factors. Multiverse analyses revealed that (a) conservatism and SDO were significant predictors of distrust of climate science in > 99.9% of model specifications, with conservatism accounting for 80% of the total variance; (b) conservatism, RWA, religiosity, (male) sex, (low) education, (low) income, and distrust of climate science were significant predictors of skepticism about science in general (vs. faith) in > 99.9% of model specifications; (c) conservatism, RWA, (low) education, and distrust of climate science were significant predictors of trust in ordinary people (over scientific experts) > 99.9% of the time; and (d) GSJ was a significant predictor of trust in scientific experts (over ordinary people) 81% of the time, after adjusting for all other demographic and ideological factors. Implications for the role of science in democratic society are discussed

Threatened by the immoral, challenged by the incompetent: Cardiovascular responses to intragroup morality vs. competence evaluations

In group contexts, moral judgments are used as social influence tactics to regulate the behavior of group members. We argue that communicating moral disapproval with the aim of adapting group members’ behavior might backfire because it elicits (negative) threat rather than (positive) challenge. In two experiments, we examined the motivational consequences of negative morality (vs. competence) evaluations in group contexts. Participants worked on a group task while cardiovascular indices of challenge and threat motivational states were measured following the biopsychosocial model (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). In Experiment 1, participants recalled their own prior behavior evaluated as immoral or incompetent; in Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an ingroup member’s prior behavior evaluated as immoral or incompetent. As predicted, in both experiments, reminders of immorality induced a state of threat rather than challenge in a novel group context. These results suggest that moral disapproval intended to motivate group members to adapt their behavior might actually be counterproductive

Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection

Many topics that scientists investigate speak to people’s ideological worldviews. We report three studies—including an analysis of large-scale survey data— in which we systematically investigate the ideological antecedents of general faith in science and willingness to support science, as well as of science skepticism of climate change, vaccination, and GM. The main predictors are religiosity and political orientation, morality, and science understanding. Overall, science understanding is associated with vaccine and GM food acceptance, but not climate change acceptance. Importantly, different ideological predictors are related to the acceptance of different scientific findings. Political conservatism best predicts climate change skepticism. Religiosity, alongside moral purity concerns, best predicts vaccination skepticism. GM food skepticism is not fueled by religious or political ideology. Finally, religious conservatives consistently display a low faith in science and an unwillingness to support science. Thus, science acceptance and rejection have different ideological roots, depending on the topic of investigation

Science skepticism across 24 countries

Efforts to understand and remedy the rejection of science are impeded by lack of insight into how it varies in degree and in kind around the world. The current work investigates science skepticism in 24 countries (N = 5973). Results show that while some countries stand out as generally high or low in skepticism, predictors of science skepticism are relatively similar across countries. One notable effect was consistent across countries though stronger in WEIRD nations: General faith in science was predicted by spirituality, suggesting that it, more than religiosity, may be the ‘enemy’ of science acceptance. Climate change skepticism was mainly associated with political conservatism, especially in North America. Other findings were observed across WEIRD and non-WEIRD nations: Vaccine skepticism was associated with spirituality and scientific literacy, GM skepticism with scientific literacy, and evolution skepticism with religious orthodoxy. Levels of science skepticism are heterogeneous across countries, but predictors of science skepticism are heterogeneous across domains

Kenmerken en valkuilen van effectief beleid voor genderdiversiteit in de wetenschap

Gender diversity is receiving considerable attention in policy interventions aimed at inclusion and equal opportunities, also in academia. Gender diversity among researchers can be beneficial for scientific progress and knowledge utilization. Yet women are still disadvantaged in all facets of academia. Even in the absence of performance differences, relevant statistics show a persistent leadership- pay, and funding gap. This is often attributed to implicit gender bias: women have less return on their academic investment and achievement than men do. Gender bias operates mostly subconsciously and the difference in opportunities for male and female scientists are often relatively small. Yet they can set in motion a self-defeating cycle where women are under-represented and are not supported, feel undervalued and become less motivated, and eventually start to disengage from work. Men as well as women often display and suffer from implicit forms of gender bias, even if it is unintentionally and is not always recognized as such. Consequently, diversity interventions are not always effective, in part because they lack sufficient support. We discuss several common traps that hinder the effectiveness of diversity interventions. In addition, we identify multiple characteristics of effective interventions. Evidence-based and context-dependent diversity interventions can foster a gender diverse academia. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved