No abstract

Manipulation checks are often advisable in experimental studies, yet they rarely appear in practice. This lack of usage may stem from fears of distorting treatment effects and uncertainty regarding which type to use (e.g., instructional manipulation checks [IMCs] or assessments of whether stimuli alter a latent independent variable of interest). Here, we first categorize the main variants and argue that factual manipulation checks (FMCs)-that is, objective questions about key elements of the experiment-can identify individual-level attentiveness to experimental information and, as a consequence, better enable researchers to diagnose experimental findings. We then find, through four replication studies, little evidence that FMC placement affects treatment effects, and that placing FMCs immediately post-outcome does not attenuate FMC passage rates. Additionally, FMC and IMC passage rates are only weakly related, suggesting that each technique identifies different sets of attentive subjects. Thus, unlike other methods, FMCs can confirm attentiveness to experimental protocols.

A symmetry analysis based upon the structure of simple molecules and their anticipated intermolecular interactions can lead to successful predictions of molecular packing and crystal symmetry. As a demonstration of these ideas an in-depth study of the oxalamide functionality as a persistent hydrogen bonding unit is presented. The synthesis and structural characterization of a series oxalamide dicarboxylic acids is presented and the structures compared with the analogous urea compounds. Both the urea and oxalamide dicarboxylic acids form designed two-dimensional hydrogen-bonded -networks with a significant degree of reliability. The urea designs are quite reliable when there is a molecular 2-fold axis, but competing hydrogen bond patterns are found when less symmetrical molecules are studied. The oxalamide design based on inversion centers is also quite reliable, with the designed layer structure found in most cases.

No abstract

This article argues that the concept of prudence can provide valuable insights into the problems of the New Public Management. Prudence, or practical wisdom, is the ability to make sound decisions under complex, ever‐changeable conditions. Old‐style bureaucracy severely limited the discretion of most administrators but preserved a site of true prudential judgment at the peak where discreet “mandarins” policed the boundary between politics and administration. The reforms that inaugurated New Public Management dismantled this site of prudence while simultaneously attempting, in effect, to disperse prudential judgment and action throughout the service. Though raising the problem of prudence, these reforms misconceived it as the problem of how to balance new freedoms with new controls to prevent abuse or folly. This essay argues that the introduction of market mechanisms, risk‐management and cost‐benefit techniques, ethics training, performance accountability, and calls to leadership were destined to fail because they misapprehended the problem of prudence.

No abstract

No abstract

Partisanship in American politics is inextricably linked with social identities, and sentiments toward party-aligned groups affect political orientations. However, out-group animosity may operate differently depending on the party or elite. We investigate the extent to which citizens’ animus toward (Democratically aligned) minority groups drove political support for Donald Trump, whose incendiary rhetoric regarding such groups is unique in modern presidential politics. Leveraging panel data beginning before Trump’s candidacy, we find that animus toward Democratic-linked groups in 2011 predicts future support for Trump regardless of party identity. This animus does not predict future support for other Republican or Democratic politicians or either party. Nor do we find that animus toward Republican groups predicts support for Democratic elites. Trump’s support is thus uniquely tied to animus toward minority groups. Our findings provide insights into the social divisions underlying American politics and the role of elite rhetoric in translating animus into political support.