Explaining cross‐national variation in the relationship between priority congruence and satisfaction with democracy

Previous research has shown that citizens tend to be more satisfied with the functioning of democracy when their ideological positions are more proximate to representatives'. This article argues that congruence in policy priorities between citizens and political elites should have a similar effect: citizens whose concerns are shared by elites should perceive them to be more attentive and responsive to public concerns and societal needs. Yet, the relationship might vary with differences in expectations towards democracy and representation. Specifically, it should be stronger in more democratic countries and older democracies. The hypotheses are empirically tested in a multilevel regression framework, where voter survey data from the 2009 European Election Study is linked with candidate survey data. The results indicate that citizens are indeed more satisfied with democracy if elites share their concerns, and the effect increases with democratic experience.     

Congress,the Supreme Court,and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model

Recent scholarship suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court might be constrained by Congress in constitutional cases. We suggest two potential paths to Congressional influence on the Court's constitutional decisions: a rational‐anticipation model, in which the Court moves away from its preferences in order to avoid being overruled, and an institutional‐maintenance model, in which the Court protects itself against Congressional attacks to its institutional prerogatives by scaling back its striking of laws when the distance between the Court and Congress increases. We test these models by using Common Space scores and the original roll‐call votes to estimate support in the current Congress for the original legislation and the Court's preferences over that legislation. We find that the Court does not appear to consider the likelihood of override in constitutional cases, but it does back away from striking laws when it is ideologically distant from Congress.     

How does psychopathy relate to humor and laughter? Dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at, the sense of humor, and psychopathic personality traits

This scoping study examines the relation of the sense of humor and three dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at to psychopathic personality traits. Based on self-reports from 233 adults, psychopathic personality traits were robustly related to enjoying laughing at others, which most strongly related to a manipulative/impulsive lifestyle and callousness. Higher psychopathic traits correlated with bad mood and it existed independently from the ability of laughing at oneself. While overall psychopathic personality traits existed independently from the sense of humor, the facet of superficial charm yielded a robust positive relation. Higher joy in being laughed at also correlated with higher expressions in superficial charm and grandiosity while fearing to be laughed at went along with higher expressions in a manipulative life-style. Thus, the psychopathic personality trait could be well described in its relation to humor and laughter. Implications of the findings are highlighted and discussed with respect to the current literature.     

Structural,Domestic, and Strategic Interests in the European Union: Negotiation Positions in the Council of Ministers

Preferences are a crucial element for analyzing decision making and negotiations, but knowledge about which factors determine these preferences is sparse. Some quantitative and qualitative studies of European Union (EU) negotiations have assumed that the negotiation conflict dimensions in intergovernmental negotiations reflect market‐versus‐regulation approaches as well as a north–south dimension. In this study, I demonstrate that these findings can be extended to show that the relevant determining factors for negotiation positions are economic structural variables and the degree to which a country benefits from the EU. Furthermore, the domestic interests of EU governments better explain a government's interest in some specific issues, such as consumer protection or fishery policies, than do their partisan preferences. Moreover, I am able to show that in frequent negotiations, such as EU Council of Ministers negotiations, sincere preferences dominate; however, some factors, such as extreme salience, can increase the likelihood that a minister will choose a less sincere strategic position such as an extreme position.     

Psychometric validation of the Brief Symptom Inventory 25 Forensic (BSI-25-F)

The Brief Symptom Inventory 25 Forensic (BSI-25-F) is a screening instrument for measuring the psychophysical distress of prisoners and forensic patients. The aim of the study was to validate the instrument. For this purpose, 165 forensic patients, 312 general psychiatric patients, and 1359 people from the general population completed the BSI-25-F. In addition, the data of the long-term prisoners who were studied when the instrument was originally developed were used for comparison. The item analyses revealed acceptable to very good item characteristics within the target samples of the prisoners and the forensic patients for the majority of the items. Reliability tests also showed acceptable to good values for the target samples. The differential validity but not the factorial validity could be proved. To conclude, the new BSI-25-F represents an economic, practicable, and reliable screening instrument for identifying prisoners who are in a need of treatment.     

A Gramscian Approach to Studying the Judicial Decision-Making Process

This paper applies a Gramscian analytical framework to scrutinise the judicial decision-making process. Based on two distinct research projects, the article explores how, on one hand judges in criminal courts can be identified as part of the bureaucratic machinery of the state, as ‘technicians of repression’; whereas, on the other hand, human rights judges can be distinguished as providing ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ in their production and reproduction of certain values. Some of the key questions this article seeks to answer are: What is the role of hegemony in the judicial decision-making process? To what extent are legal actors both ‘technicians of repression’ and ‘moral and intellectual leaders’? This paper uses examples from empirical research conducted at courts in Argentina and at the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights to identify and explore this dual role of judges as both repressive technicians and moral and intellectual leaders in neo-liberal capitalist societies.