Bachelor of Arts, Wittenberg University, 2019, Psychology

The Ambivalent Sexism Theory consists of two subdimensions of sexism—hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism comprises of openly negative attitudes towards women, while benevolent sexism endorses the continuation of traditional paternalistic attitudes towards women. Previous research in the field has found significant associations between both hostilely and benevolently sexist attitudes and the Big Five personality traits of Open-Mindedness and Agreeableness as well as the personality traits of other-oriented empathy. Previous research has also found significant associations between Open-Mindedness, Agreeableness, and empathy and the interpretation of hostile sexism in real-world. The aim of this study was to determine the existence of associations between the aforementioned personality traits and the interpretation of benevolent sexism in real-world scenarios. Participants completed an anonymous online survey that assessed their endorsement of Open-Mindedness and Agreeableness personality traits, their endorsement of empathy, and their interpretation of benevolent sexism in ambiguous scenarios. The scenarios were presented in a series of vignettes created specifically for this study. This study found significant positive associations between Open-Mindedness and the interpretation of benevolent sexism. There were no significant associations between Agreeableness and the interpretation of benevolent sexism or other-oriented empathy and the interpretation of benevolent sexism. However, findings may be limited due to low power as a result of small sample size.

Committee: William Davis (Advisor); Lauren Crane (Committee Member); Kate Polak (Committee Member) Subjects: Gender; Gender Studies; Psychology; Womens Studies

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2018, Philosophy

The contemporary vision of the doctor-patient relationship is a partnership. With the rejection of medical paternalism, ethicists and medical professionals recognized the importance of ensuring that patients were active participants in decisions regarding their care. In place of granting doctors authority to make medical decisions, doctors and patients are now expected to share authority over treatment decisions. However, this expectation is not supported by the current normative foundation for the doctor-patient partnership; specifically, its commitment to respect the patient's right of self-determination. Therefore, the contemporary ideal of the doctor-patient relationship is at odds with the normative foundation upon which it rests. The aim of this dissertation is to offer a revision to the normative foundation for the doctor-patient partnership, in order to do justice to the ideal of a shared decision-making process. In Chapter 1, I detail the theoretical development of the ideal of the doctor-patient partnership and I identify a tension between the envisioned partnership and the commitment to respect the patient's right of self-determination. In Chapter 2, I show that this tension is deeper than has been appreciated. The incompatibility between the doctor-patient partnership and the commitment to respect the patient's right of self-determination runs deeper than has generally been acknowledged. In Chapter 3, I argue that we should abandon the commitment to respect the patient's right of self-determination. I argue that the partnership model is worth preserving because it enables the doctor to function fully as a patient health advocate. The entitlement to try and persuade patients to revise decisions regarding their care is important for protecting patient health from being devalued. If we instead embrace an account of the doctor-patient relationship that requires that persuasion be justified, we lose out on a key dimension of this valuable social role. (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Piers Turner (Advisor); Dana Howard (Committee Member); Tristram McPherson (Committee Member); Abraham Roth (Committee Member) Subjects: Philosophy

PHD, Kent State University, 2018, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Sociology and Criminology

Welfare policies have historically faced criticisms from both sides of the political aisle in the United States. The critical reception of welfare policies is evident in how public discourse surrounding welfare generally portrays welfare as a program that facilitates complacency and dependency. Criticisms of both welfare programs and recipients tend to stem from stereotypes and controlling images about clients. Overall, it is apparent that welfare policies and discourse are highly ideological. Specifically, previous work establishes the presence of several ideologies in welfare and its surrounding discourse, including neoliberalism, paternalism, and racism. Many of the dependency criticisms persist despite the 1996 welfare reform, which broadly focused on moving clients toward work participation. Welfare officials implement these controversial policies within the context of public discourse that negatively represents both welfare programs and recipients. The managers administering welfare are thus in a high-pressure situation in which they must navigate and enforce unclear policy goals, including holding clients accountable to these uncertain goals. Amid public discourse and ambiguous accountability structures, how do welfare program managers incorporate ideology into how they talk about the program and their expectations for clients? In my dissertation research, I explore how cash assistance program managers draw on a variety of ideologies when they talk about holding clients accountable to both formal requirements (meeting program goals) and informal standards (e.g., wanting clients to become “good workers”) of the cash assistance program. I build on previous literature by focusing on managers (rather than frontline workers) who play a unique role in prioritizing goals and thus are in a unique position to discuss standards to which clients are held accountable. My analysis further contributes to an interesting intersection of literatures in inequality (race, class (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Tiffany Taylor Ph.D. (Advisor); Clare Stacey Ph.D. (Committee Member); Kathryn Feltey Ph.D. (Committee Member); Janette Dill Ph.D. (Committee Member); Patricia Dunmire Ph.D. (Committee Member); Christine Mallinson Ph.D. (Committee Member); Mark Cassell Ph.D. (Other) Subjects: Sociology