University of Portsmouth

About: University of Portsmouth is a education organization based out in Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Galaxy. The organization has 5452 authors who have published 14256 publications receiving 424346 citations. The organization is also known as: Portsmouth and Gosport School of Science and Art & Portsmouth and Gosport School of Science and the Arts.

Staying on in Full-Time Education: Reasons for Higher Participation Rates Among Ethnic Minority Males and Females

Abstract: Individuals from ethnic minorities have a greater tendency to stay on in full-time education beyond the compulsory age. There are, however, wide variations between groups, and the paper explores the role for human capital considerations such as earnings and increased employability in this choice. Economic considerations and socioeconomic background are found to be important, but there is evidence for a separate ethnicity effect influencing choice. The method used is to fit a joint leaving and employment equation for males and females aged 18–24 using combined micro data from the British Labour Force Survey and the Sample of Anonymized Records from the 1991 Census.

EU external policy at the crossroads: The challenge of actorness and effectiveness

Abstract: The goal of this Special Issue is to improve our conceptualisation and empirical understanding of EU actorness and effectiveness in International Relations. While the European Union aspires to play a greater global role, its actorness and effectiveness cannot be taken for granted given the nature of the EU as a multi-level and semi-supranational polity encompassing 28 Member States with diverse foreign policy preferences. The EU is presently at an important crossroad. On the one hand, its external policy stature and capacity have been boosted by institutional innovations and by the Union�s increased involvement in the full spectrum of international issues. On the other hand, a number of factors cast doubt on the EU�s real external policy actorness and effectiveness: slow and often only modest internal reforms, an increasing politicisation of formally �low politics� issues, the prolonged sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone, and a less favourable external environment, with the US shifting its focus to the Asia-Pacific region and emerging powers creating a more polycentric world order. In view of these changes and subsequent developments in the scholarly literature, our aim is to re-evaluate earlier conceptions of EU actorness. Central to this re-evaluation will be a shift in focus from notions of actorness to effectiveness. This introductory article will unpack and further elaborate the issues raised in this abstract by delineating the EU as an international actor in the empirical context, by reviewing the existing conceptual literature, defining and conceptualizing key notions and by providing an overview of the contributions to this Special Issue.

An Empirical Test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview

Abstract: The present experiment is the first empirical test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview (BAI), an interview technique developed by F. E. Inbau, J. E. Reid, J. P. Buckley, & B. C. Jayne (2001) designed to evoke different verbal and non-verbal responses from liars and truth-tellers. Inbau et al. expect liars to be less helpful than truth-tellers in investigations and to exhibit more nervous behaviours. Just the opposite predictions, however, follow from the deception literature, which notes that liars take their credibility less for granted and are therefore more aware of their responses and their impact on others. This suggests that liars' answers should be more helpful than truth-tellers' answers, and liars' non-verbal responses should appear more relaxed than truth-tellers' non-verbal responses. In the present experiment, 40 participants (undergraduate students) lied or told the truth about an event during a BAI interview. The interviews were coded according to Inbau et al.'s guidelines. The results showed that, compared to liars, truth-tellers (a) were more naive and evasive when explaining the purpose of the interview, and (b) were less likely to name someone who they felt certain did not commit the crime. Truth-tellers also exhibited more nervous behaviours. The results were consistent with the predictions of the deception literature, and directly opposed to the predictions of BAI.