Forgetting and the Value of Social Information

Information is everywhere in nature, however it can be deceitful or incorrect, so not all information should be used. Foraging pollinators utilize variable and ephemeral resources so learning about patch quality and nectar replenishment rates are essential to success and survival. However, remembering information after it is no longer relevant is not advantageous. It has been theorized that a pollinator’s memory should reflect their environment. Bumblebees are known to use both personal information (information gathered through trial and error) and social information (information gained through observations of or interactions with other animals or their products) in foraging decisions; however, it is currently unknown how social and personal information are valued in bumblebee memory. We conducted an experiment to illuminate the rate at which bumblebees (Bombus impatiens)learn and forget personal and social information. We manipulated the value of social and personal information by varying their reliabilities, and tested the retention of that learned information after 4, 8, and 24 hours. We found that social information is retained better than personal information, and retention decreases as time since learning increases. This experiment is a first step toward elucidating when social or personal information is more valuable to a forager

Welfare state attitudes and support for social Europe:Spillover or obstacle?

This study investigates how support for Social Europe is related to citizens’ welfare attitudes. On the one hand, welfare attitudes can spill over from the national to the European level, given that Social Europe aims to achieve similar goals to those of national welfare states. On the other hand, support for the welfare state can be an obstacle, if citizens perceive the nation state and the European Union as competing or substituting governance levels. Using data from the 2014 Belgian National Election Study, we take a multidimensional approach to Social Europe, capturing attitudes toward social regulations, member state solidarity, European social citizenship, and a European social security system. Results demonstrate that citizens who are more positive about the welfare state are also more supportive of Social Europe. However, positive welfare attitudes do not affect all dimensions of Social Europe to the same extent. The spillover effect of support for basic welfare state principles is strongest for policy instruments of Social Europe that are less intrusive to national welfare states (EU social regulations). By contrast, welfare state critique has a stronger impact on support for more intrusive instruments (European social citizenship)

Gedifferentieerde dreiging en de verklaring van vooroordelen: Anti-immigranten attitudes, islamofobie, antisemitisme en homonegativiteit vergeleken

Deze bijdrage stelt dat een te eenzijdige aandacht voor de veralgemeende component van vooroordelen een obstakel vormt om de structuur en genese van vooroordelen tegenover specifeke groepen te begrijpen. We stellen een model van gedifferentieerde dreiging voor dat toelaat het particuliere karakter van specifeke vooroordelen te conceptualiseren en te toetsen. Deze benadering postuleert dat verschillende uitgroepen diverse economische en culturele belangen uitdagen, en dat deze specifeke bedreigingen diverse socio-economische lagen en culturele segmenten van de bevolking in verschillende mate treffen. Vervolgens passen we het model van gedifferentieerde dreiging toe om de houdingen van autochtone Belgen tegenover immigranten, moslims, joden en homoseksuelen te analyseren. De resultaten tonen aan dat het inderdaad mogelijk is om een gemeenschappelijke component in de diverse vooroordelen te onderscheiden. Maar tegelijkertijd bevatten de onderscheiden vooroordelen elk een relevante, unieke component die op verschillende wijze samenhangt met structurele kenmerken en attitudes. Traditionele genderopvattingen, bijvoorbeeld, hebben tegelijkertijd een versterkend effect op homonegativiteit en een temperende invloed op islamofobie. Gevoelens van relatieve deprivatie zijn dan weer sterker gerelateerd met islamofobie dan met andere vormen van vooroordeel en hebben helemaal geen impact op homonegativiteit. Religiositeit speelt een meer beslissende rol in de formatie van antisemitisme en homonegativiteit dan het geval is bij andere vooroordelen

Differentiated Threat and the Genesis of Prejudice: Group-Specific Antecedents of Homonegativity, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, and Anti-Immigrant Attitudes

In this article we argue that an exclusive focus on the generalized aspect of prejudice limits understanding of the structure and genesis of prejudice towards particular out-groups. In order to conceptualize the specific nature of particular prejudices, we propose the differentiated threat approach. This framework postulates that different out-groups challenge diverse realistic and symbolic interests, and that these out-group specific threats affect various socio-economic strata and cultural groups differentially. The differentiated threat approach is applied to analyse majority-group Belgians’ attitudes towards immigrants, Muslims, Jews and homosexuals. The results show that a common denominator of prejudice can be distinguished, but that the prejudices towards the various out-groups contain substantively relevant unique components that are influenced by socio-demographic and attitudinal predictors in diverging ways. Gender traditionalism is found to reinforce homonegativity and temper Islamophobia at the same time. Feelings of relative deprivation are more strongly related to Islamophobia than to other forms of prejudice, and are unrelated to homonegativity. Religious involvement plays a more decisive role in the formation of antiSemitism and homonegativity than it does in the other forms of prejudice. Anti-immigration attitudes show a class gradient that is absent in attitudes towards other out-groups. Our results evidence that the concrete realization of attitudes towards a specific out-group cannot be understood without paying attention to structural and contextual factors, such as social positions, the nature of inter-group relations, power balances and elite discourses

Attitudes toward asylum policy in a divided Europe:Diverging contexts, diverging attitudes?

The large inflow of asylum-seekers in recent years has heralded a diversification in adopted asylum policies across European societies. Although a growing body of research has addressed these versatile approaches and their implications for the European integration project, insight into the social basis of these restrictive or open asylum policies remains underdeveloped. Hence, the current study provides detailed insight into public preferences for asylum policies and offers a new understanding of how these attitudes are affected by diverging socio-economic realities across Europe. In addition, this paper considers the role of individual factors that coincide with publicly adopted frames in contemporary asylum debates. In particular, to explain how contextual differences reflect on opinion climates, the impacts of the policy, economic, and migratory context are studied. On the individual-level, we focus on threat perception and human values, which represent humanitarian, economic, and cultural frames. To explore these relations, data on 20 countries from the European Social Survey Round 8 (2016) are analyzed through a multilevel structural equation modeling approach. Results indicate that, on the contextual-level, only unemployment rates have a significant impact and, rather surprisingly, lower unemployment rates provoke a more negative opinion climate. Yet, this relationship seems to be largely driven by some specific countries that are characterized by large unemployment rates and relatively positive opinion climates simultaneously. The migratory and policy context, on the other hand, do not influence attitudes toward asylum policy. This indicates that it is not necessarily the countries facing the largest inflow of asylum-seekers or issuing the most positive decisions on asylum applications that have the most restrictive opinion climates. As shown by the important roles of human values and threat perceptions, which represent widely adopted frames, public discourses seem much more important in explaining attitudes toward asylum policy across Europe

"First the grub, then the morals"?:Disentangling the self-interest and ideological drivers of attitudes towards demanding activation policies in Belgium

Following the shift towards an activating role of the European welfare states, there is increasing scholarly interest in public support for demanding activation policies that impose obligations on welfare recipients. Borrowing the classical theoretical frameworks used in welfare attitudes research, we aim to disentangle the effect of self-interest and ideological beliefs on support for demanding activation. Using data from the Belgian National Election Study (2014), we find that support for demanding activation is strongly related to authoritarian dispositions, work ethic and rejection of egalitarianism. For the social-structural variables, we find direct as well as indirect (that is, mediated by the ideological dimensions) effects. Controlling for ideology, social categories that are potentially most affected by welfare obligations - i.e. those currently unemployed, with a previous experience of unemployment and low-income individuals - are more likely to oppose demanding policies, which can be interpreted as a self-interest effect. The effects of educational level, conversely, are primarily mediated and should be understood in terms of ideological preferences rather than self-interest. Our results indicate that, when analysing support for specific welfare policies, attention needs to be paid to the interplay between self-interest and ideological preferences

Foraging patterns vary with the degree of sociality among Common Loon (Gavia immer) overwintering on a freshwater lake

Little is known about the behaviour of Common Loon (Gavia immer) during the critical overwintering period, let alone the behaviour of the small, but increasing number of loons that overwinter on freshwater lakes in North America. We examined the diurnal time-activity budgets of Common Loon overwintering on a large reservoir in northwest South Carolina between 2018 and 2020. Similar to previous studies of breeding individuals and individuals that overwinter in marine waters, loons (n = 132) overwintering on this reservoir spent most of their time (52%) foraging. However, we found distinct differences in the activity budgets of individuals associated with their degree of sociality. Solitary birds (individuals spending 0–20% of time within 20 m of conspecifics) spent significantly more time foraging than did those that were either loosely-social (>20–<70% of time within 20 m of conspecifics) or strongly-social (70–100% of time). Although solitary loons made as many foraging dives as social birds, their dives were much longer, likely reflecting dives for larger predatory fish. In contrast, social individuals made much shorter, shallower dives, often foraging on shallower baitfish that they appear to pursue to the water surface and consume collectively. Such findings add to our understanding of loon winter behaviour and raise interesting questions regarding social behaviour and the short- and long-term trade-offs associated with social foraging in this species

The welfare agenda of the populist radical right in Western Europe:Combining welfare chauvinism, producerism and populism

Recent scholarship on the populist radical right tends to imprecisely describe the welfare agenda of this party family with reference to its key ideological characteristics of nativism, authoritarianism, and populism. We propose an alternative analytical framework that considers the multidimensionality of welfare state positions and the “deservingness criteria” that underlie ideas about welfare entitlement. Applying this framework to a sample of four European populist radical right parties, we conclude that three interrelated frames inform their welfare agenda. These parties, we argue, advocate social closure not only on the basis of the deservingness criterion of identity (welfare chauvinism), but also on criteria of control, attitude, and reciprocity (welfare producerism) and on an antagonism between the people and the establishment (welfare populism). Understanding the welfare agenda of the populist radical right requires us to move beyond welfare chauvinism and to reconsider the concept of welfare producerism and its interaction with welfare chauvinism