This is a study of how opposing cultural values influence support for minorities’ civil liberties. We build on a rich body of work, which establishes that culturally liberal Europeans are more likely to value diversity and favor minority rights than are cultural conservatives. Our contribution is to bring attention to how a second dimension of value conflict upends this established pattern. If a religious minority, in this case Muslims, wants to use their religious freedom to call on Muslims to adhere to conservative Islamic values – to preach them – support for their civil liberties plunges. We report substantively large and remarkably consistent results from seven classical tolerance experiments conducted in three European countries. In each trial, we observe the tendency of non-Muslims to deny Muslims their right to freedom of religion. We consistently observe that culturally liberal citizens join cultural conservatives in turning against Muslims’ right to hold a public rally when Muslims intend to exercise their right to freedom of expression to preach (the speech-act dimension) culturally conservative ideas in Islam (the substantive dimension). Preaching is a performative utterance, an instance of when saying something is doing something. What is being done, in addition to what is being said, is to call for compliance. This study finds that conflicts with religiously grounded values in contemporary European liberal democracies often have an additional order of intensity, because stating religious beliefs in the form of performative utterances is an integral part of religious practice.

Wildlife reintroduction projects often face resistance from local residents who see potential conflicts with the species or lack trust or confidence in the agencies and professionals involved in reintroduction. Yet the linkages between trust, confidence, risk perceptions, attitudes towards the species and local support for its reintroduction are not well known. The Dual-Mode Model of Cooperation and Cognitive Hierarchy Model were theoretical frameworks used to shed light on these linkages by exploring the potential roles trust and confidence play as mediators between risk perceptions and attitudes towards, and support for, reintroduced elk in Tennessee (USA). A mail survey of 1005 residents living in the five-county area surrounding the North Cumberland Elk Restoration Zone assessed resident attitudes and risk perceptions towards the reintroduced elk, trust towards the managing wildlife agency and support for continued conservation efforts. A structural equation model revealed that trust and confidence play positive roles in mitigating risk perceptions and improving support for the reintroduction of elk. The findings confirm the roles public trust and confidence play in wildlife reintroductions and should help agencies work towards building local trust and confidence, minimizing risks, improving attitudes and increasing the chances for successful outcomes for the species and people.

Suicide is a global public health problem, but very few theories have been developed for its etiology and effective prevention. Presented in this article is a comprehensive and parsimonious theory explaining the socio-psychological mechanism prior to suicidal behavior. Strain, resulting from conflicting and competing pressures in an individual’s life, is hypothesized to precede suicide. The strain theory of suicide (STS) proposes four sources of strain leading to suicide: (1) value strain from differential values; (2) aspiration strain from the discrepancy between aspiration and reality; (3) deprivation strain from the relative deprivation, including poverty; and (4) coping strain from deficient coping skills in the face of a crisis. This new model is built on previous notions of anomie (Durkheim, 1897/1951), strain theories of deviance (Merton, 1957) and crime (Agnew, 1992), although suicide is not a major target for explanation in those theories. Future research with rigorous quantitative data needs to be conducted to further test STS on a more comprehensive level.

When citizens hold multiple values relevant to their policy opinions, they might experience value conflict, value reconciliation or make a value trade-off. Yet, it is unclear which individuals are able to manage their multiple values in these ways. We posit a sophistication-interaction theory of value pluralism where the most politically sophisticated individuals are able to reconcile the existence of multiple values, thus increasing the stability of their policy opinions. We test this hypothesis using a series of heteroskedastic graded item response theory models of public opinion toward policies related to climate change. We find that people structure their policy preferences toward climate change policies in values toward the environment and the economy, but only the most sophisticated citizens are able to reconcile the potential conflict between these values.