Consensus Arbitration: A Negotiation‐Based Decision‐Making Process for Arbitrators

In reaching their decisions, arbitrators are currently expected to act like judges by listening fully to both sides and then withdrawing to write the final and complete decision. But because of some key differences between their roles, I argue, arbitrators and judges should exercise completely different styles of decision making. Unlike judges, who make decisive rulings in order to enforce the law, arbitrators are empowered and chosen by the parties themselves to handle specific disputes or govern continuing relationships. Instead of shifting a negotiated process into an authoritative one, arbitrators have the capacity to solicit input from parties as they craft the award. Under a new model of arbitration that I call “consensus arbitration,” arbitrators would facilitate negotiation between the parties but retain the power to break impasses with partial, incomplete decisions, behaving more like facilitators than judges.     

Shopping cart injuries, entrapment, and childhood fatality

Shopping carts may be associated with a variety of injuries, particularly in toddlers and young children. These usually relate to falls from carts or to tip-overs. Injuries that are sustained include hematomas/contusions, abrasions, lacerations, fractures, and fingertip amputations. Fatal episodes are uncommon and are usually due to blunt craniocerebral trauma from falls. A case involving a 19-month-old girl is reported who became entrapped when she inserted her head through the side frame of a cart that had been removed from a supermarket and left at her home address. Death was caused by neck compression. Although rare, the potential for lethal entrapment during unsupervised play means that the presence of stray shopping carts at private residences and in public places, including playgrounds and parks, is of concern. Strategies, such as coin deposits, should be encouraged to assist in the return of such carts to supermarkets.     

Implicit Outgroup Favoritism and Intergroup Judgment: The Moderating Role of Stereotypic Context

Implicit outgroup favoritism has been documented in a variety of socially disadvantaged groups, yet little is known about the implications of having such bias. The present research examined whether implicit outgroup favoritism predicts judgments of ingroup versus outgroup members, and whether that relationship depends on stereotypic context. One hundred and ten African-American participants were assigned a Black versus a White work partner for a task that required skills that are stereotypically White (e.g., intellect) versus Black (e.g., athleticism). Participants rated Black partners as less competent than White partners on the stereotypically White task. Furthermore, participants who implicitly favored Whites liked Black partners less than White partners, but only on the stereotypically White task. Implications for system justification theory are discussed.

Policy capacity during COVID-19 in Asia: A systematic literature review

COVID-19 has revealed the policy capacity of some governance institutions, both resilience and vulnerability. Hence, this circumstance has demanded public administration scholars and practitioners to rethink the existing governance practices, particularly in making effective crisis-related policies. This paper reviewed primary and secondary studies exploring the application of policy capacity competencies in facilitating COVID-19 handling in Asia. In achieving so, we did a systematic literature review of relevant studies published between January and October 2020. Applying the agreed search term to several databases, we found 2541 studies, while merely 30 were included for review. Findings from the studies are predominantly closely linked to operational capacity (n = 21). Other studies are related to political and analytical capacity (n = 14 and 7, retrospectively). We found that there are some dilemmas and inadequacy of understanding concerning the role of features in certain capacities (such as technology use versus individual privacy, the paradox of trust and legitimacy, or centralisation versus decentralisation), particularly in the time of crisis, which is a calling for future research.     

The Nordic governments' responses to the Covid-19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments

Government responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in the Nordic states—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—exhibit similarities and differences. This article investigates the extent to which crisis policymaking diverges from normal policymaking within the Nordic countries and whether variations between the countries are associated with the role of expertise and the level of politicization. Government responses are analyzed in terms of governance arrangements and regulatory instruments. Findings demonstrate some deviation from normal policymaking within and considerable variation between the Nordic countries, as Denmark, Finland, and to some extent Norway exhibit similar patterns with hierarchical command and control governance arrangements, while Iceland, in some instances, resembles the case of Sweden, which has made use of network-based governance. The article shows that the higher the influence of experts, the more likely it is that the governance arrangement will be network-based.     

The Urban–Rural Gulf in American Political Behavior

Political Behavior - Urban–rural differences in partisan political loyalty are as familiar in the United States as they are in other countries. In this paper, we examine Gallup survey data...     

Parental Differential Treatment of Siblings and Adolescents’ Health-Related Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Personality

Youth who receive comparatively poorer parental treatment than a sibling are at risk for maladaptive behaviors in a variety of domains, but research has yet to examine links with adolescents’ health-related behaviors nor consider how those links may vary based on adolescents’ personality traits, namely conscientiousness and agreeableness. Two siblings (n?=?590 adolescents; 53% female; M_age?=?15.86, SD?=?1.73) from 295 families reported on their differential conflict and closeness with their fathers and mothers as well as on their personality, sleep habits, exercise habits, and general health habits. Multilevel modeling revealed that, generally, the less conscientious adolescents had better health habits when they had comparatively warmer relationships with their mothers. Less conscientiousness adolescents may be less distressed by inequality in the family, and thus may experience positive effects of relatively better treatment.

     

Populism and Connectivism: An Analysis of the Sanders and Trump Nomination Campaigns

This paper is an analysis of the Trump and Sanders’ campaigns for the presidential nomination of their respective parties. It studies the structure of the relationship between the campaign and its supporters through communication on each candidate’s Facebook page. While both campaigns have been termed populist, we differentiate populism from connectivism and develop an account of a connective campaign as a species of connective action. Whereas populism is predicated on a singular people, connectivity involves the acceptance and recognition of difference as a resource for political activity. Whereas populism involves a hierarchical authority relationship, connectivity is based on a reciprocal authority relationship. Finally, populism articulates an anti-establishment demand while connective campaigns demand for citizens to have the capacity for consequential engagement with political life. The empirical results demonstrate that connectivism and populism are distinct in practice and that these attributes hang together as two separate concepts. Further, we find that Trump’s campaign communications emphasize populist themes, for Sanders such themes are limited and in the shadow of connectivism.     

Cognitive Abilities,Social Adaptation,and Externalizing Behavior Problems in Childhood and Adolescence: Specific Cascade Effects Across Development

Children’s and adolescents’ cognitive abilities, social adaptation, and externalizing behaviors are broadly associated with each other at the bivariate level; however, the direction, ordering, and uniqueness of these associations have yet to be identified. Developmental cascade models are particularly well-suited to (1) discern unique pathways among psychological domains and (2) model stability in and covariation among constructs, allowing for conservative tests of longitudinal associations. The current study aimed to identify specific cascade effects among children’s cognitive abilities, social adaptation, and externalizing behaviors, beginning in preschool and extending through adolescence. Children (46.2?% female) and mothers (N?=?351 families) provided data when children were 4, 10, and 14 years old. Cascade effects highlighted significant stability in these domains. Unique longitudinal associations were identified between (1) age-10 cognitive abilities and age-14 social adaptation, (2) age-4 social adaptation and age-10 externalizing behavior, and (3) age-10 externalizing behavior and age-14 social adaptation. These findings suggest that children’s social adaptation in preschool and externalizing behavior in middle childhood may be ideal intervention targets to enhance adolescent well-being.     

Toward Conflict or Compromise? How Violent Metaphors Polarize Partisan Issue Attitudes

We know much about how opinion leaders drive mass partisan polarization with position-taking cues but little on how different message types polarize citizens, and who responds most to those messages attributes. This article contributes new insights by investigating how exposure to common violent metaphors interacts with audience personality traits to polarize partisans on issues. Building from research on conflict orientations, we theorize that aggressive rhetoric primes aggression in aggressive partisans, motivating greater intransigence on party positions. As a consequence, aggressive partisans are pulled further apart on issues, thereby reducing prospects for compromise. We find support for our predictions in two large nationally diverse survey experiments conducted in very different political contexts. Our results demonstrate the subtle power of aggression in public opinion and highlight the important moderating role of individual differences in the communication of partisan conflict.