Suchergebnisse

The authors introduce and develop the concept of "divorceness," and test its utility using a sample of divorced women. Correlations between divorceness and postdivorce experiences are documented and implications for social work educators, researchers, and practitioners are presented.

AbstractThe study of bureaucratic behavior—focusing on control, decision-making, and institutional arrangements—has historically leaned heavily on theories of rational choice and bounded rationality. Notably absent from this research, however, is attention to the growing literature on biological and especially evolutionary human behavior. This article addresses this gap by closely examining the extant economic and psychological frameworks—which we refer to as "Adam Smith's bureaucrat" and "Herbert Simon's bureaucrat"—for their shortcomings in terms of explanatory and predictive theory, and by positing a different framework, which we call "Charles Darwin's bureaucrat." This model incorporates new insights from an expanding multidisciplinary research framework and has the potential to address some of the long-noted weaknesses of classic theories of bureaucratic behavior.

The need to develop a system of collecting & circulating data concerning state politics is articulated. Although data regarding state politics have become more available during the late 20th century, it is argued that methods for collocating & disseminating such data remain inadequate. Three problems that have arisen from this failure to properly categorize state politics data are identified, eg, using informal networks for gathering information may reduce the empirical quality of state politics data. Consequently, it is announced that the journal State Politics & Policy Quarterly has initiated measures to periodically inform scholars about existing state politics data, especially from sources available via the Internet. Short synopses of the content of several Web sites that have state politics data readily available are also provided. 3 References. J. W. Parker

AbstractMoral Foundations Theory (MFT) is employed as a causal explanation of ideology that posits political attitudes are products of moral intuitions. Prior theoretical models, however, suggest the opposite causal path, that is, that moral judgments are driven by political beliefs. In both instances, however, extant research has assumed rather than explicitly tested for causality. So do moral intuitions drive political beliefs or do political beliefs drive moral intuitions? We empirically address this question using data from two panel studies and one nationally representative study, and find consistent evidence supporting the hypothesis that ideology predicts moral intuitions. The findings have significant implications for MFT as a theory of ideology, and also about the consequences of political beliefs for shaping how individuals rationalize what is right and what is wrong.

"Following one of the most contentious and truth-challenged presidential administrations and elections in U.S. history, there has never been a greater need for an American government text like this--evidence-based, critically thoughtful, and contemporary in tone and touch. This text teaches students to think analytically by presenting current political science theories and research in answering the engaging, big questions facing American politics today. It serves as an introduction to the discipline-covering the Constitution, political behavior, formal and informal institutions, and public policy--by reflecting the theoretical developments and types of empirical inquiry conducted by researchers. For introductory courses in American government, this text covers theory and methods as well"--

"Predisposed presents evidence that people differ politically not just because they grew up in different cultures or were presented with different information. All these factors certainly play their role but people also differ politically because they have diverse psychological, physiological and genetic traits. This biologically-based, physio-cognitive machinery influences much of what makes people who they are, including their personalities, preferences for occupation and leisure pursuits, tastes in art and music, strategies for child rearing and, yes, orientations to politics. In short, this machinery predisposes people to see and understand the world in different ways. These predispositions are in turn responsible for a significant portion of the political conflict that marks human history"--

"Predisposed presents evidence that people differ politically not just because they grew up in different cultures or were presented with different information. All these factors certainly play their role but people also differ politically because they have diverse psychological, physiological and genetic traits. This biologically-based, physio-cognitive machinery influences much of what makes people who they are, including their personalities, preferences for occupation and leisure pursuits, tastes in art and music, strategies for child rearing and, yes, orientations to politics. In short, this machinery predisposes people to see and understand the world in different ways. These predispositions are in turn responsible for a significant portion of the political conflict that marks human history"--

In a recent paper in this journal, Knoll et al. question three studies from our laboratory. In this response to that paper, we address deficiencies in their "reproduction." Notably, we demonstrate that their data provide little evidence of a negativity bias among research subjects, suggesting a failure not only to reproduce findings from our earlier studies, but also a failure to find a widely acknowledged universal human physiological response trait. This situation raises a number of questions regarding the data on which their analyses are based. We explore these questions below and speculate that Knoll et al.'s data collection procedures may compromise their ability to speak to the external validity of earlier studies.

In this article, we use an original laboratory experiment to test how people react to ambitious decision makers, allowing for interactions with gender. In the experiment, participants are told two decision makers will be dividing some valuable resource on their behalf. One decision maker (either high or low in ambition) is "appointed." Participants vote from a slate of candidates, about whom they have information on gender and ambition, for the second decision maker. We find that people tend to associate high ambition with male and self-interested behavior and that the selection of the second decision maker depends on the level of ambition of the first decision maker as well as perceptions of gender of that decision maker. We conclude by suggesting important implications for research on vote choice and representation.