Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Newburg, KY, United States

Bellarmine University is an independent, private, Catholic university in Louisville, Kentucky. The liberal arts institution opened on October 3, 1950, as Bellarmine College, established by Archbishop John A. Floersh of the Archdiocese of Louisville and named after the Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine. The name was changed by the Board of Trustees in 2000 to Bellarmine University. The university today is organized into seven colleges and schools and confers numerous Bachelor's and Master's degrees in more than 50 academic majors, along with three doctoral degrees; it is currently classified as a Master's university.The university has a current enrollment of over 3,600 students on its main 135-acre academic and residential campus located in the Belknap neighborhood of Louisville. At its spring commencement on May 14, 2011, the school graduated 482 undergraduate and graduate students, contributing to a total of 780 graduates for the school year, up from 700 the previous year.The university offers a large number of extracurricular activities to its students, including athletics, honor societies, clubs and student organizations. Bellarmine's athletic teams are known as the Knights. The university is a member of NCAA Division II and competes in the Great Lakes Valley Conference for most sports, except men's lacrosse which competes at the NCAA Division I level in the Southern Conference. Bellarmine men's basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Men's Division II Basketball Tournament, the first national championship in school history. Alumni and former students have gone on to prominent careers in government, business, science, medicine, education, sports, and entertainment. Wikipedia.


Objective: To examine the association between sedentary behavior and hearing sensitivity among a nationally representative sample of older US adults. Methods: Data from the 2003-2006 NHANES study was used, with 682 older adults (≥ 55 years) included in the study. Participants wore an ActiGraph 7164 accelerometer to measure sedentary behavior and hearing sensitivity was objectively measured in a sound-isolating room. Results: After adjustments, and comparisons to those with moderate or greater hearing loss, participants 65. years and older with hearing within normal limits (coefficient = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.01) engaged in less sedentary behavior; participants with mild hearing loss (coefficient = 0.02; 95% CI: -0.01-0.07) did not differ in sedentary behavior than those with moderate or greater hearing loss. Sedentary behavior was not associated with hearing among those 55 and older. Conclusions: Adults 65 and older with hearing in normal limits engage in less sedentary behavior than their counterparts with moderate or greater hearing loss. Evaluation and implementation of strategies to limit sedentary behaviors among older adults with greater hearing impairment, in particular, are needed. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Source


As criticisms of factory farming continue to mount, an increasing number of individuals have changed their existing dietary practices. Perhaps the two most important food movements reacting against industrial farming are (1) vegetarianism, the avoidance of animal flesh; and (2) conscientious omnivorism (CO), the consumption of meat or fish only when it satisfies certain ethical standards. While the former group has been well-studied in the social science literature, there have been few, if any, studies specifically examining those who identify themselves as ethical meat eaters. The present research sought to determine if one particular diet was more greatly adhered to by its followers. Results revealed that COs were less likely to perceive their diet as something that they absolutely needed to follow, reported violating their diet more, felt less guilty when doing so, believed less in animal rights, were less disgusted by factory-farmed meat, rated its sensory characteristics more favorably, and were lower in ingroup identification than vegetarians. Mediation analysis demonstrated that differences in the amount of violations and guilt associated with these violations could in part be traced to practical and psychological factors, making it more difficult to follow conscientious omnivorism. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Rothgerber H.,Bellarmine University
Appetite | Year: 2014

Meat eaters face dissonance whether it results from inconsistency ("I eat meat; I don't like to hurt animals"), aversive consequences ("I eat meat; eating meat harms animals"), or threats to self image ("I eat meat; compassionate people don't hurt animals"). The present work proposes that there are a number of strategies that omnivores adopt to reduce this dissonance including avoidance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, denial of animal pain, denial of animal mind, pro-meat justifications, reducing perceived choice, and actual behavioral change. The presence of vegetarians was speculated to cause meat eating to be a scrutinized behavior, remind meat eaters of their discomfort, and undermine the effectiveness of these strategies. It was therefore hypothesized that exposure to a description of a vegetarian would lead omnivores to embrace dissonance-reducing strategies. Supporting this hypothesis, participants who read a vignette about a vegetarian denied animal mind more than participants who read about a gluten-free individual. It was also hypothesized that omnivores would be sensitive to individual differences between vegetarians and would demonstrate using dissonance-reducing strategies more when the situation failed to provide cognitions consonant with eating meat or to reduce dissonant cognitions. Four experiments supported this prediction and found that authentic vegetarians, vegetarians freely making the decision to abandon meat, consistent vegetarians, and anticipating moral reproach from vegetarians produced greater endorsement of dissonance-reducing strategies than their counterpart conditions. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Rothgerber H.,Bellarmine University
Appetite | Year: 2013

The present research examined pet ownership, current pet diet, and guilt associated with pet diet among a fairly large sample of non-meat-eaters (n=515). It specifically focused on the conflict that pits feeding one's pet an animal-based diet that may be perceived as best promoting their well-being with concerns over animal welfare and environmental degradation threatened by such diets, here labeled the vegetarian's dilemma. Questionnaire responses indicated that ethically motivated meat abstainers were more likely to own pets and owned more of them than those motivated by health concerns or a combination of ethical and health concerns. Vegans and those resisting meat on ethical grounds were more likely to feed their pet a vegetarian diet and expressed the greatest concerns over feeding their pet an animal-based diet. For vegans and ethical meat abstainers, it is suggested that questions concerning what to feed their pet approaches a tragic tradeoff contrasting two sacred values: protecting the well-being of their pets and protecting the well-being of other animals and the environment. For meat abstainers motivated by health concerns, this constitutes a relatively easy moral problem because the primary concern for such individuals is the health of their pet with less or no regard for other ramifications of the decision, i.e., harming other animals or the environment. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Rothgerber H.,Bellarmine University
Appetite | Year: 2014

A number of studies have documented a phenomenon whereby individuals self-identify as vegetarians but then simultaneously acknowledge that they eat red meat, chicken, and/or fish. Despite being a consistent and fairly robust effect, there has been little attempt to explain these semi-vegetarians, why they would define themselves in a category whose membership criteria they violate, and ways they might differ from strict vegetarians. The present research highlights possible reasons for the discrepancy and focuses on several dimensions that may demarcate semi-from strict vegetarians: belief in human-animal similarity and liking of and disgust toward meat. Survey results indicated that semi-vegetarians ( n= 57) were less likely to dislike meat and to find meat disgusting than were strict vegetarians ( n= 157), even accounting for diet motives. There were no differences between the groups in their beliefs about human-animal similarity although semi-vegetarians who consumed a wider range of animal products perceived marginally less human-animal similarity than those who consumed only fish. The results suggest that semi-vegetarians are distinct from strict vegetarians primarily in their evaluation of and disgust toward meat, likely as a cause or consequence of their occasional consumption of animal flesh. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Source

Discover hidden collaborations