A Note on Race, Ethnicity and Nativity Differences in Remarriage in the United States

The objectives of this study are to produce up-to-date estimates of race/ethnic/nativity differentials for remarriage and repartnership among women in the United States and to see if these differences are due to across-group differences in demographic characteristics. First, we produce lifetable estimates of remarriage and repartnering for white, black, U.S. born Latina and foreign born Latina women. Next, we estimate race/ethnic/nativity differentials for remarriage and repartnership using event-history analysis with and without controls for demographic characteristics. The results suggest a continued overall decline in remarriage rates, while many women repartner by cohabitating. Whites are more likely than blacks or Latinas to remarry and they are also more likely to repartner. Race/ethnic/nativity differentials remain even after accounting for variations in demographic characteristics. This suggests that race/ethnic/nativity differentials in remarriage and repartnering rates, rather than ameliorating disadvantages associated with divorce, reinforce these differentials.

Thinking about the past, present and future in adolescents growing up in Children's Homes

The present study tested the hypothesis that adolescents growing up in Children's Homes differ from adolescents growing up in a family environment in how they think about their past, present and future, in the way they make decisions about future events and rewards, and in their levels of empathy and perspective taking. The participants were 40 adolescents from Children's Homes in Budapest, Hungary, and 40 age- and gender-matched controls. Group differences were found in participants' past and present time perspectives, and girls from Children's Homes showed reduced consistency in their plans for the future. Additionally, gender differences emerged in empathy, perspective taking, and in participants' present and future time perspectives. We discuss the implications of our findings for interventions to improve the future prospects of adolescents in Children's Homes.

Children’s essentialist reasoning about language and race

Across four studies, we directly compared children’s essentialist reasoning about the stability of race and language throughout an individual’s lifespan. Monolingual English-speaking children were presented with a series of images of children who were either White or Black; each face was paired with a voice clip in either English or French. Participants were asked which of two adults each target child would grow up to be – one who was a ‘match’ to the target child in race but not language, and the other a ‘match’ in language but not race. Nine- to 10-year-old European American children chose the race-match, rather than the language-match. In contrast, 5–6-year-old European American children in both urban, racially diverse, and rural, racially homogeneous environments chose the language-match, even though this necessarily meant that the target child would transform racial categories. Although surprising in light of adult reasoning, these young children demonstrated an intuition about the relative stability of an individual’s language compared to her racial group membership. Yet, 5–6-year-old African American children, similar to the older European American children, chose the race-match, suggesting that membership in a racial minority group may highlight children’s reasoning about race as a stable category. Theoretical implications for our understanding of children’s categorization of human kinds are discussed.

Organising EU non-discrimination law around the nodes of ‘race’ gender and disability?

EU non-discrimination law has seen a proliferation of discrimination grounds from 2000. Dis-crimination on grounds of gender (in the field of equal pay) and on grounds of nationality (generally within the scope of application of EU law) were the only prohibited forms of discrimination in EU law, until the Treaty of Amsterdam empowered the Community to legislate in order to combat discrimination on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (Article 13 EC). Proliferation of non-discrimination grounds is also characteristic for international and national non-discrimination law. As such, proliferation of grounds results in an increase in potential cases of “multiple discrimination” and the danger of diluting the demands of equality law by ever more multiplication of grounds. The hierarchy of equality, which has been so widely criticised in EU law, is a signifier of the latter danger.
This chapter proposes to structure the confusing field of non-discrimination grounds by organising them around nodes of discrimination fields. It will first reflect different ways of establishing hierarchies between grounds. This will be followed by a recount of different (narrow and wide) reading of grounds. A comprehensive reading of the grounds gender, ‘race’ and disability as establishing overlapping fields of discrimination grounds will be mapped out, with some examples for practical uses.

Can Safe Clinical Thinking be Taught?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if: (a) safe clinical decision making can be taught to undergraduate final year medical students and (b) if such students can be taught to specifically recognise illness severity from nominal clinical data. 
METHODS: 115 final year undergraduate medical students completed a 3 hour interactive Safe Thinking Workshop which focussed entirely on nontechnical skills such as potential perceptive pitfalls, attention to detail, teamwork and safe clinical decision making. The study involved students inspecting and interpreting a set of arterial blood gas results relating to a patient with acute respiratory distress, then answering a short questionnaire addressing biochemical diagnosis, clinical diagnosis and effective management. A separate question was embedded in the questionnaire to determine if astute students could determine the severity of the illness from the CO2 value provided. The study group (n = 58) completed the questionnaire immediately after the Safe Thinking Workshop, whilst the control group (n = 57) completed the questionnaire prior to the Workshop.
RESULTS: The mean total score for study students was 80.51%, with a mean total score of 63.86% for the control group (Student’s t-test; p<0.05). Correct classification of illness severity was observed in 10.35% of study students, compared with 3.51% of control students (p<0.05). 
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that safe clinical decision making and recognition of illness severity can be fostered by specific teaching in the nontechnical skill areas described above.