6 In other research, socialexclusion was independently shown to dampen cognitive executive functioning, such as memory or reasoning, which could also affect cooperation (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002; Hawes et al., 2012). However, the link between cognitive resources and cooperation is not straightforward. Some evidence suggest that when participants use fewer cognitive resources (i.e., deliberate less) they are more cooperative (Rand, Greene, & Nowak, 2012), but others found evidence for the opposite (Achtziger, Alós-Ferrer, & Wagner, 2016), or no effect at all (Bouwmeester et al., 2017; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). For example, participants with higher cognitive reflection scores have been shown to invest more money in a one shot public good game (Lohse, 2016). Indeed, giving money away in an investment game may be a smart move with a cooperative investor, but it may not be the “intelligent” course of action with an uncooperative partner (Rand, 2016). Hence, building on the fact that socialexclusion is expected to tax cognitive resources, exclusion should dampen the ability to be strategic in multiplayer games requiring coordination with other people. One could therefore expect that excluded individuals may perform worse in tasks requiring them to adjust their own level of cooperativeness in response to the behaviour of their partner.
In Experiment 2, we compared judgments and decisions among those who were excluded and included in the game of Cyberball. Overall, the experience of rejection did not have an impact on participants’ responses. Although classic judgment and decision-making fallacies were common in our sample, they were not more prevalent among the excluded individuals. This is in contrast to our predictions that socialexclusion leads to impaired deliberative thinking. In the case of temporal discounting, the results showed a significant difference between the included and excluded participants. Excluded participants showed more patience and less discounting on average, which is inconsistent with the previous research showing that participants in an exclusion condition were less patient than those in the included condition (Twenge et al., 2002a).
Abstract. Socialexclusion is a wider concept than poverty and includes not only material conditions but also inability to participate in economic, social, political and cultural life. The essence of socialexclusion is social relationships (more exactly breaking off relationships), which may mean not only pushing away some members of the society, but also breaking off relationships with the society from the side of a person himself/herself. The reasons of origin of socialexclusion may be legal, political, economical, social and cultural. Nowadays socialexclusion is predetermined by social-economic factors. According to Povili¯unas (2001), the problems of children’s socialexclusion may be solved ensuring proper education, care of public health, safety and minimal life standard. Growing aggression and violence of schoolchildren and their socialexclusion are nowadays an important issue of political debate and media reports. Often schoolchildren face the risk of socialexclusion at school during the period of adolescence. The risk also depends on the social status of their family in the society and the relationship of the family members.
Some employers, aware that they may face difficulties if they openly mistreat an employee with HIV, attempt to cover this by forms of constructive dismissal. In the experience of Terrence Higgins Trust employment advisors, this has included drastically altered and unacceptable shift patterns and requests to wear inappropriate clothing such as gloves or masks which would mark the person out. Some employers have simply failed to stop victimisation by other staff, making continued work impossible. Although the majority of employers do not behave in this way, many people are unwilling to risk their jobs to find out. This secrecy, in turn, excludes them from a potential source of support, contributes to isolation and exclusion and may lead to difficulties if they become ill or need time off to cope with new treatments.
economic life. In other words, the analysis will capture the relationship across the region between social capital and the multidimensional sphere of the living standard. In doing so, the first initial problem we face is to operationally separate the concept of poverty from that one of socialexclusion. The concept of socialexclusion has been recognised in the literature to be complex and rich of dimensions (Townsend 1979, Negri 1995, Bohnke 2001, Capacci and Castagnaro 2003, Burchardt et al 1999). However, whether poverty and socialexclusion has to be a single phenomenon or two distinct aspects of a society is still an open and unsolved question (Stranges 2007). This paper is far from solving this dilemma and it does not have even the intention. By completely respecting the different positions taken by the scholars, we will consider these two aspects as determinant for a better living condition. In terms of methodology and measurements, we will distinguish the two concepts with a certain “degree of freedom”. While poverty definitions are essentially based on monetary values either in terms of consumption or in terms of income (Grootaert 2001, Gertler, Levine and Moretti 2006, Pritchett 1997, just to mention some of the numerous empirical works in the poverty literature), socialexclusion combines economic, social and human aspects. In other words, this concept is not only limited to the individual sphere but to the society ones (Stranges 2007, Sen 1997). Therefore we consider poverty and socialexclusion as a continuum process of the same socio-economic “degrade”.
concerns in the literature, with regard to the decline of human relations; the importance of face to face and physical contact; an increase in social isolation; deception and misrepresentation in the online world; and the decline of community (Adams, 2000; Graham, 2000; Hamburger and Ben- Artzi, 2000; Cornwell and Lundgren, 2001 – contrary views from Rheingold, 2000; and Baym, 1995). However, when questioned, participants could only discuss an extension of community and contacts online – there was no evidence of a negative social impact as a result of the online participants’ lives. This is also the case in the literature – there is little writing of substance that suggests that either side of the debate has the upper hand. What is clear, however, is that level of exposure to the Internet is directly related to the level of concern about negative social effects – the more experienced Internet users were highly sceptical about negative social effects, whilst the reverse was true for less experienced users. The influence of the media upon perceptions is also observable, with participants citing news stories and television fiction, particularly Coronation Street’s Internet abduction story line, as evidence of the dangers of the Internet. The authors suggest that at this stage, discussion about and acceptance of virtual mobility will be influenced by concerns about the negative social effects – however, these concerns will decline with increased popular exposure to the Internet.
● People face barriers to engaging in the community. They can struggle to access the basic services they need, in particular decent housing and transport. Education, arts, sports and leisure providers often are not aware how their services could benefit people with mental health problems and how they could make their services more accessible for this group. Many people do not want to participate in activities alone, but feel there is no one they can ask to go with them. People can also faceexclusion by law from some community roles such as jury service. 10. Some groups face particular barriers to getting their mental health and social needs addressed:
This section below looks at different groups vulnerable to socialexclusion in Nigeria. It is divided into: women and girls; people with disabilities; ethnic and religious minorities; migrants and internally displaced people; children and young people; older people; sexual minorities; people without identification; people living with HIV; and people living in different locations. However, it is important to note the intersectional forms of exclusion that each of these groups face. The UNDP notes, for example, that “women and young people are often victims of multiple and interlocking forms of discrimination and exclusion that can lead to an imbalance of power that excludes them from participating in economic development and affairs that affect them, ultimately undermining their needs and aspirations” (2018, p. 26). For each of the groups below, socialexclusion is experienced as a result of complex and intersectional factors that combine to reduce their participation in society.
In general, an employment relationship ends either because workers are laid off, their contract expires and is not prolonged or they quit voluntarily. In the empirical analysis I study how the effects depend on the type of job loss. The distinction be- tween voluntary and involuntary unemployment allows me to learn more about the self-selection of employees into unemployment. The PASS-ADIAB does not contain information on mass layoffs which could be used to estimate the effects of involuntary job loss as it is often done in the literature. However, the individual risk of being af- fected by a mass layoff might also be influenced by selection both on the part of the firm as well as on the employee side. 7 Firms of a different size, sector or workforce compo- sition face different business risks and vary with respect to their employment contract designs. Similarly, employees might self-select, for instance due to family reasons, to work in firms that are less likely to make layoffs. The German Employment Protection Act (Kündigungsschutzgesetz) prescribes the requirements for making workers redun- dant. 8 This law states that termination with notice is only valid if it is based on reasons relating to either the employees’ character, conduct, or urgent operational business re- quirements. The employer has to undertake a social selection of the relevant employees on the basis of length of employment, age, family support obligations and severe dis- ability. However, there might still be a certain scope for an employer to lay off workers with low productivity or bad health. The individual probability of becoming unem- ployed might be influenced by unobservable factors like ability or motivation but also by lower levels of the outcome variables before job loss. For instance, unhappy people or people with few social contacts or mental health problems could be more likely to become unemployed.
At face value there has been a shift in the culture of football (soccer) itself. Largely driven by the global success of the Premiership in England, the game appears to be more popular than ever amid protestations that some of the old negative images, particularly of hooliganism, are on the decline. The football authorities are mindful of their responsibilities in governing the game from the grassroots upward and are involved in a variety of socially beneficial activities typified by national campaigns to combat racism and by other community-based initiatives, such as the Football in the Community programme. However, it is also argued (Wagg, 2002) that while this seeming success in transforming the public image of the game has increased its following, it actually masks a number of serious socialexclusion problems and the failure of the football authorities to address them. Such difficulties are typified at national level in particular, by support for the England team which is reliant on an exclusive cultural framework centred around notions of ‘Englishness’, which serve to exclude others (Crabbe, 2004).
The political fragmentation of many metropolitan areas in the United States has contributed to the problems of joblessness and related social dislocations of the inner-city poor. As David Rusk (1993), the former mayor of Albuquerque has pointed out, because the older cities of the East and the Midwest were unable to expand territorially through city-county consolidation or annexation, they failed to reap such benefits of suburban growth as the rise of shopping malls, offices, and industrial parks in new residential subdivisions. As areas in which poor minorities live in higher and higher concentration, these cities face an inevitable downward spiral because they are not benefiting from suburban growth. Rusk argues, therefore, that neighbourhood revitalisation programs, such as community development banks, non-profit inner-city housing developments, and enterprise zones, will not be able
Specific groups of care leavers face additional disadvantages because of their status or characteristics, compounding their exclusion. Black and minority ethnic young people, including those of mixed heritage, face similar challenges to other young people leaving care. However, they may also experience identity problems derived from a lack of knowledge, or contact with family and community, as well as the impact of racism and discrimination (Barn et al. 2005). Research carried out during 2002–3 in England found that unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking young people were excluded from services under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 where local authorities decided not to ‘look after’ them but support them under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (Wade et al. 2005). They were also likely to receive poorer services than looked after young people, especially in respect of support from leaving care teams (Hai & Williams 2004).
As the analysis of socialexclusion has a dynamic nature, the longitudinal dimension of the PSELL dataset is a key advantage because it makes it possible to follow the same individuals or households over time, to investigate separately cause and effect, to separate the sequences of events and behaviours involved and to indicate to what extent people move in and out socialexclusion states. The main limitation of the dataset is that it does not cover many aspects of deprivation, such as health, food and clothing, recreation and family activities, while other aspects cannot be followed longitudinally in all waves. But PSELL provides variables on education, employment, income, consumption, saving, housing, durable goods and child care, being a rich source of data for the analysis of deprivation and socialexclusion.
We have integrated some elements from the first edition of the "Jaarboek Armoede en Sociale Uitsluiting/Annuaire sur la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale" (Yearbook on Poverty and SocialExclusion) as well (Vranken, Geldof, 1992). We hope the report gives a fairly representative picture of what is happening in Belgium with respect to socialexclusion in all its forms. However, we are well aware of the fact that the Dutch speaking part of the country has been covered more extensively and intensively than the French-speaking part. The sole reason for this is the lack of financial means. We expect to improve our coverage of Wallonia and Brussels in the next months. The remarks made by the Belgian government-representative have been very helpful.
Despite a sharp increase in the share of girls who enroll in, attend, and complete various levels of schooling, an educational gender gap remains in some countries. In this paper we argue that one explanation for this gender gap is the degree of socialexclusion within these countries, as measured by ethno-linguistic heterogeneity, which triggers both economic and psycho-social mechanisms to limit girls’ schooling. Ethno-linguistic heterogeneity (or ethno-linguistic fractionalization, ELF) has appeared in the literature as a driver of economic growth, civil conflict, and the availability of public goods (Alesina, Devleeschauwer, Easterly, Kurlat, and Wacziarg. 2003; Habyarimana, Humphreys, Posner and Weinstein, 2007; Matuszeski, and Schneider 2006), but this is a first application of the concept to explain gender gaps in education. The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 1 discusses the effects of female education on economic and social development. Section 2 reviews the evidence regarding gender and ethnic differences in schooling, and introduces the concept of “socialexclusion” as it applies to these differences. Section 3 examines the origins of socialexclusion and reviews various theories from economics, sociology and psychology regarding how socialexclusion can account for gender and ethnic differences in education. Section 4 tests the association empirically through cross-country analyses, and Section 5 presents our conclusions.
First of all, it is important to note that when social identities are freely cho- sen, it is likely that individuals will choose to identify with social groups that are relatively positively valued in society (although positivity is not the sole concern in determining group identification; see Brewer, 1991; Hogg & Mullin, 1999). But to the extent that one’s social groups are positively valued and possess pos- itive stereotypes, then processes such as self-stereotyping should be fairly nonproblematic. When the traits that comprise the group stereotype are positive then perceiving these traits as being more descriptive of the self can enhance both personal and collective self-esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). However, many social groups are not positively valued and are negatively stereotyped, for example, stigmatized groups such as racial and ethnic minori- ties. In these cases, being more prototypical may entail perceiving oneself in terms of the negative group stereotype and acting in a negative stereotypical manner (see Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999). In our own research (Pickett et al., 2002) we found that when highly identified sorority members were given feedback indicating that they were peripheral, they engaged in greater negative self-stereotyping and more negative stereotypical self-presentation. More specifically, these women acted more snobbish and superficial than core mem- bers and believed that traits such as materialistic, stuck-up, and spoiled were more self-descriptive. Although measures of personal self-esteem were not included in this study, a question that these data often raise is whether the sorority members felt worse about themselves personally after describing themselves in such a negative manner. One can also imagine that behaviors such as outgroup derogation and purposefully excluding others from the ingroup may be at variance with individuals’ personal standards and values. When this is the case, how do group members resolve this potential conflict?
There are barriers to travel which affect some socially-excluded people more than the rest of the population.
Cost. Public transport is becoming increasingly expensive (Maddison et al., 2014) and those with cars must pay for parking. For some people, travel (using either private or public modes) is too expensive for them to make essential journeys: one in four unemployed people say that their job search is inhibited by the cost of travel to interviews (SocialExclusion Unit, 2003). The cost of transport can be a major barrier to engaging in education and work for young people (ACEVO Commission on Youth Employment, 2012). Increases in bus fares in Manchester to support the increased cost of supporting the Concessionary Travel Pass for older people led to some young people not being able to travel to after-school activities (pteg, 2014). Small increases in bus fares can have a large impact on low income families, especially for participation in after-school activities (Greater Manchester Transport Research Unit, 2008).
‘Helping the most vulnerable’ might be seen as an early pre-occupation of the SEU: its early reports focused on particular groups – rough sleepers, those truanting from or excluded from school, pregnant teenagers, young people not in education, or training. A large part of its work subsequently focused on neighbourhood disadvantage. In 2004, alongside continuing work on specific groups such as looked-after children, prisoners and those suffering poor mental health, the emphasis shifted to a programme of work on Breaking the Cycle and preventing socialexclusion, including a substantial amount of commissioned work on The drivers of socialexclusion (Bradshaw et al, 2004). In May 2006 the issue of socialexclusion was given Cabinet-level priority with the appointment of a Minister for SocialExclusion. This, however, was followed with the announcement in June 2006 of the closure of the SEU itself, with its work being transferred to a smaller task force in the Cabinet Office responsible for trying to persuade Whitehall departments to focus on the most severely excluded. The SocialExclusion Task Force (SETF) avoids the terminology of the Treasury, whose Children and Young People’s Policy Review (launched in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills and informing the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review) includes ‘the stock of families already regarded as high cost, high harm’ and those ‘at high risk of moving into this situation’ (HM Treasury 2006; see also Feinstein and Sabates 2006). For SETF, references to ‘disadvantage and harm’ (SETF 2006:5) are accompanied by prioritisation of ‘specific hard-to-reach groups, including children in care, people with mental health problems and teenagers at risk of pregnancy’ (SETF, 2006, p. 95), and an emphasis on early intervention. However, there are also references to ‘problem families’ (Cabinet Office 2006), and a strong emphasis in the report on the responsibility of the excluded themselves: Thus ‘In this Action Plan we have focused on some of the most excluded groups, such as children in care or adults leading chaotic lives – groups that have generally failed to fulfil their potential and accept the responsibilities that most of us take for granted’ (SETF 2006:10).
As this paper has emphasised, confidence in oneself, through one's interaction with the social environment, is central to achievement. We may not be able to define confidence precisely, but we know it when we have it and also when we lack it. In a “just” society, no group should unfairly suffer from a “confidence deficit” or enjoy a “confidence surplus”. The root of the problem of poor Dalit achievements lies in the many dysfunctional primary and secondary schools, in the villages and towns of India, characterised by an absence of learning materials, teachers, and, sometimes, even classrooms. It is in these schools that learning is stifled for millions of children. Compounding the problem of dysfunctional schools is the poverty of parents, many of whom are Dalits, who cannot afford to keep children on at school; indeed, given the poor quality of schooling that their children receive, they see no reason for making sacrifices for their children’s education.