Psychological and Interpersonal Implications of Believing that Everything is One: Identity, Personality, Values, and Worldviews

For thousands of years, people from a variety of philosophical, religious, spiritual, and scientific perspectives have believed in the fundamental unity of all that exists, and this belief appears to be increasingly prevalent in Western cultures. The present research was the first investigation of the psychological and interpersonal implications of believing in oneness. Self-report measures were developed to assess three distinct variants of the belief in oneness – belief in the fundamental oneness of everything, of all living things, and of humanity – and studies examined how believing in oneness is associated with people’s self-views, attitudes, personality, emotions, and behavior. Using both correlational and experimental approaches, the findings supported the hypothesis that believing in oneness is associated with feeling greater connection and concern for people, nonhuman animals, and the environment, and in being particularly concerned for people and things beyond one’s immediate circle of friends and family. The belief is also associated with experiences in which everything is perceived to be one, and with certain spiritual and esoteric beliefs. Although the three variations of belief in oneness were highly correlated and related to other constructs similarly, they showed evidence of explaining unique variance in conceptually relevant variables. Belief in the oneness of humanity, but not belief in the oneness of living things, uniquely explained variance in prosociality, empathic concern, and compassion for others. In contrast, belief in the oneness of living things, but not belief in oneness of humanity, uniquely explained variance in beliefs and concerns regarding the well-being of nonhuman animals and the environment. The belief in oneness is a meaningful existential belief that is endorsed to varying degrees by a nontrivial portion of the population and that has numerous implications for people’s personal well-being and interactions with people, animals, and the natural world.

Expanding Role Theory: US Responses to Hizb'allah and Iran

There are many sociopolitical theories to help explain why governments and actors do what they do. Securitization Theory is a process-oriented theory in international relations that focuses on how an actor defines another actor as an “existential threat,” and the resulting responses that can be taken in order to address that threat. While Securitization Theory is an acceptable method to analyze the relationships between actors in the international system, this thesis contends that the proper examination is multi-factorial, focusing on the addition of Role Theory to the analysis. Consideration of Role Theory, which is another international relations theory that explains how an actor’s strategies, relationships, and perceptions by others is based on pre-conceptualized definitions of that actor’s identity, is essential in order to fully explain why an actor might respond to another in a particular way. Certain roles an actor may enact produce a rival relationship with other actors in the system, and it is those rival roles that elicit securitized responses. The possibility of a securitized response lessens when a role or a relationship between roles becomes ambiguous. There are clear points of role rivalry and role ambiguity between Hizb’allah and Iran, which has directly impacted, and continues to impact, how the United States (US) responds to these actors. Because of role ambiguity, the US has still not conceptualized an effective way to deal with Hizb’allah and Iran holistically across all its various areas of operation and in its various enacted roles. It would be overly simplistic to see Hizb’allah and Iran solely through one lens depending on which hemisphere or continent one is observing. The reality is likely more nuanced. Both Role Theory and Securitization theory can help to understand and articulate those nuances. By examining two case studies of Hizb’allah and Iran’s enactment of various roles in both the Middle East and Latin America, the situations where roles cause a securitized response and where the response is less securitized due to role ambiguity will become clear. Using this augmented approach of combining both theories, along with supplementing the manner in which an actor, action, or role is analyzed, will produce better methods for policy-making that will be able to address the more ambiguous activities of Hizb’allah and Iran in these two regions.