Associations between Belief in Conspiracy Theories and the Maladaptive Personality Traits of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5

Conspiracy theories can be treated as both rational narratives of the world as well as outcomes of underlying maladaptive traits. Here, we examined associations between belief in conspiracy theories and individual differences in personality disorders. An Internet-based sample (N=259) completed measures of belief in conspiracy theories and the 25 facets of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Preliminary analyses showed no significant differences in belief in conspiracy theories across participant sex, ethnicity, and education. Regression analyses showed that the PID-5 facets of Unusual Beliefs and Experiences and, to a lesser extent, Suspiciousness, significantly predicted belief in conspiracy theories. These findings highlight a role for maladaptive personality traits in understanding belief in conspiracy theories, but require further investigation.

Muslims in Public and Media Discourse in Western Europe: The Reproduction of Aporia and Exclusion

This chapter scrutinizes the dominant public discourse in Western Europe. Drawing on examples from the UK, Germany, and France but also from the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain it illustrates the gradual transformation of discourse from an “exotic Islam” to a “threatening Islam” that endangers European values and safety and suggests that the combination of this “securitization” of Islam and the monopoly of the “Muslim voice” by radical Muslim activists leads to a vicious circle of misrecognition and enhancing the aporia of Europe's Muslims.

Rights, Rationality and Reproduction: Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate

As medical technology has advanced, so too have our attitudes towards the level of control we can or should expect to have over our procreative capacities. This creates a multidimensional problem for the law and family planning services in terms of access to services – whether to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy – and the negligent provision of these services. These developments go to the heart of our perception of autonomy. Unsurprisingly, these matters also raise a moral dilemma for the law. Distinctively, discourse in this area is dominated by assertions of subjective moral value; in relation to life, to personal choice and to notions of the archetypal family. Against this, I stress that a model of objective morality can answer these challenging questions and resolve the inherent problems of legal regulation. Therefore, I argue that notions of autonomy must be based on a rational, action-based understanding of what it means to be a ‘moral agent’. I claim that from this we might support a legal standard, based on objective rational morality, which can frame our constitutional norms and our conception of justice in these contentious areas. This paper claims that the current regulation of abortion is outdated and requires radical reform. It proposes a scheme that would shift the choice towards the mother (and the father), remove the unnecessarily broad disability ground and involve doctors having a role of counsel (rather than gatekeeper).