Sort by
When alterations are violations: Moral outrage and punishment in response to (even minor) alterations to rituals.

From Catholics performing the sign of the cross since the 4th century to Americans reciting the Pledge of Allegiance since the 1890s, group rituals (i.e., predefined sequences of symbolic actions) have strikingly consistent features over time. Seven studies (N = 4,213) document the sacrosanct nature of rituals: Because group rituals symbolize sacred group values, even minor alterations to them provoke moral outrage and punishment. In Pilot Studies A and B, fraternity members who failed to complete initiation activities that were more ritualistic elicited relatively greater moral outrage and hazing from their fraternity brothers. Study 1 uses secular holiday rituals to explore the dimensions of ritual alteration-both physical and psychological-that elicit moral outrage. Study 2 suggests that altering a ritual elicits outrage even beyond the extent to which the ritual alteration is seen as violating descriptive and injunctive norms. In Study 3, group members who viewed male circumcision as more ritualistic (i.e., Jewish vs. Muslim participants) expressed greater moral outrage in response to a proposal to alter circumcision to make it safer. Study 4 uses the Pledge of Allegiance ritual to explore how the intentions of the person altering the ritual influence observers' moral outrage and punishment. Finally, in Study 5, even minor alterations elicited comparable levels of moral outrage to major alterations of the Jewish Passover ritual. Across both religious and secular rituals, the more ingroup members believed that rituals symbolize sacred group values, the more they protected their rituals-by punishing those who violated them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Open Access
Relevant
The Right to a Nationality and the Right to Adequate Housing An Analysis of the Intersection of Two Largely ‘Invisible’ Human Rights Violations

Millions of individuals around the world face challenges enjoying their right to a nationality, and millions more face challenges enjoying their right to adequate housing. While these human rights violations are recognised in general terms, little research has considered the extent to which these human rights abuses intersect as stateless persons face violations of specific socioeconomic rights, especially the right to adequate housing. This research attempts to fill that gap. This analysis explores the term adequate housing and the various legal instruments that enshrine this right, as well as the unique challenges faced by stateless persons in its enjoyment. This research argues that states have failed to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate housing for stateless persons in a number of contexts and that these failures are particularly acute for stateless persons with additional marginalised identities, which can then result in additional human rights violations. This analysis examines how previous policy solutions have failed to adequately consider the unique needs of inadequately housed stateless persons and calls attention to the need for more holistic and inclusive approaches to realise the right to adequate housing for all, which must include stateless persons.

Open Access
Relevant