Representational Altruism: The Wary Cooperator as Authoritative Decision Maker

What drives policymakers to put the interests of others above their own? If human nature is inherently selfish, it makes sense to institutionalize incentives that counter decision makers' temptations to use their positions to benefit themselves over others. A growing literature rooted in evolutionary theories of human behavior, however, suggests that humans, under certain circumstances, have inherent predispositions towards “representational altruism,” i.e., to make an authoritative decision to benefit another at one's own expense. Drawing on Hibbing and Alford's conception of the wary cooperator, a theoretical case is made for such behavioral expectations, which are confirmed in a series of original laboratory experiments.     

Does Federalism Weaken Democratic Representation in the United States?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution explicitly designed federalismto enhance representation. Because powers are divided amongmultiple governments, citizens are able to exert pressure onthe elected officials of various governments in an effort toachieve desired outcomes. If one government is not doing whatcitizens prefer, they can seek it from a different government.This assumes that individuals form opinions about the functionsperformed by different governments. Given the complexity offederalism, this may be an unrealistic assumption for many citizens.Original survey data uniquely suited to explore this questionsuggest that citizens do behave in a fashion consistent withthe federalist framework. Moreover, the actual change in theassignment of functional responsibilities across governmentsbehaves as if it responds to public opinion.     

How Surrogate Impact Panels Function in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study

ABSTRACT

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be an urgent social problem, despite decades of intervention and prevention efforts. Restorative justice programs (e.g., victim impact panels) may be a useful addition to intimate partner violence (IPV) intervention, but it is unclear how these panels operate and to what extent they are consistent with restorative justice models. This naturalistic study of IPV surrogate impact panels used ethnographic observation of panels (n = 18), archival analysis of audience responses to the panel (N = 287), and focus groups and interviews (k = 4) with IPV survivors, an audience member, and batterer intervention providers to investigate these gaps. Findings suggest the panels manifest interactional processes consistent with restorative justice principles. Implications, limitations, and future aims of research on these panels are discussed.